item c1 margate and broadstairs urban wastewater treatment … applications... · 2008. 8. 12. ·...

C1.1

SECTION C MINERALS AND WASTE DISPOSAL

Background Documents - the deposited documents, views and representations received as referred to in the reports and included in the development proposals dossier for each case and also as might be additionally indicated.

Item C1

Margate and Broadstairs Urban Wastewater Treatment

Scheme – TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

A report by Head of Planning Applications Group to Planning Applications Committee on 14 December 2004 Applicant - Southern Water Application 1 - Upgrading of existing plant and provision of pumping plant within the existing Broadstairs Headworks. Repair of two existing storm outfalls and construction of a new connection chamber on the foreshore to connect the existing storm outfall. Construction of wastewater transfer pipeline from Broadstairs Headworks to Margate Headworks. Associated temporary construction compounds and pipe stringing area. Broadstairs Headworks, Crescent Road; land from Broadstairs Headworks to Margate Headworks; Kingsgate Avenue, Marine Drive; Margate Headworks, Princes Walk, Margate. Application 2 - Provide an above and below ground extension to Margate Headworks to provide upgraded preliminary treatment (screening and degritting), stormwater storage and pumping facilities for transfer of wastewater to Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works, discharge of treated wastewater to the sea and to accommodate Coastguards Office. Relocation of bird hide. New storm outfall tunnelled under chalk reef at Foreness Point. Associated construction compound. Highway improvements to Palm Bay Avenue. Margate Headworks, Princes Walk, Margate; Foreshore and land to the north; Friends Gap and Palm Bay Avenue Application 3 - Construct twin pipeline from Margate Headworks to Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works to transfer preliminary treated wastewater and treated wastewater. Associated tunnel shafts, washout chambers, air valves and temporary construction compounds and working strip. Land between Margate Headworks, Princes Walk, Margate and Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works, Ebbsfleet Lane, Ramsgate Application 4 - Construct wastewater treatment works to serve the communities of Margate & Broadstairs, alongside the existing treatment works. New combined sludge treatment plant serving existing and proposed wastewater treatment works at Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works, Ebbsfleet Lane, Ramsgate, Kent. Recommendation: Permission Be Granted

Local Members: Mr J Fullarton, Mr W Whelan, Mr F Fox, Mr A Poole, Mr R Ford, Mr B Christian, Mr J Kirby Unrestricted

C1.2

Item C1

Margate and Broadstairs Urban Wastewater Treatment Scheme –

TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

Plan 1 – Broadstairs Headworks and pipeline to Margate (Application 1)

C1.3

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

Plan 2 – Margate Headworks (Application 2)

C1.4

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

Plan 3 – Pipeline from Margate Headworks to Weatherlees (Application 3)

C1.5

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

Plan 4 - Weatherlees Treatment Works (Application 4)

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.6

Introduction

1. At present continuous wastewater flows from the Margate and Broadstairs sewerage catchments are collected at coastal Headworks at Foreness Point and North Foreland respectively, where they receive preliminary treatment, (including screening and grit removal) before being discharged to sea through long sea outfalls connected to each Headworks. Storm water is discharged either via combined storm outfalls or directly from the Headworks through short sea outfalls. Margate Headworks dates back to the early 1900’s. The current, much extended works is housed in an underground structure set into the chalk cliff face and dates from 1988. Broadstairs Headworks similarly is largely an underground structure at North Foreland. This current works dates from 1990.

Background

2. Southern Water previously obtained planning permission through a series of consents between 1998 and 2001, for a scheme based on the provision of full treatment for the combined catchments at the Margate Headworks. These proposals were the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Implementation was delayed by land acquisition problems and overtaken by changing regulatory requirements. The principle planning permission has lapsed.

This previously consented scheme comprised the following elements:

• Transfer of wastewater from the Broadstairs Headworks to the Margate Headworks (Planning Permission Reference TH/97/709);

• Extension of the underground Margate Headworks to provide preliminary, primary (Ref.TH/97/709 and TH/99/46)’ secondary and UV disinfection treatment (Ref. TH/99/856); and,

• Discharge of treated effluent and storm water from the outfalls at Foreness Point. 3. These proposals initially included road transport of sludge produced at the extended

Margate Headworks to the existing Weatherlees Works for further treatment. However in response to public concerns about lorry movements planning permission was sought for a sludge transfer pipeline and a Sludge Treatment Centre at the Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works (ref. TH/98/718, TH/01/54 and TH/98/758) but these permissions have since lapsed.

New Proposals

4. The purpose of the scheme now proposed is to provide Margate and Broadstairs with

modern wastewater treatment facilities in compliance with:

• The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC as implemented through the Urban Wastewater Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994;

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.7

• The Bathing Water Quality Directive (76/106/EC), as implemented through the Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991;

• The Quality Required of Shellfish Waters (The Shellfish Waters Directive)(79/923/EEC) – implemented through the Surface Water (Shellfish) (Classification) Regulations 1997 and the Surface Water (Shellfish) Directions 1997; and,

• The Shellfish Hygiene Directive (91/492/EC) implementation of which is now consolidated in the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations 1998.

5. The primary driver for the scheme is the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the

aim of which is to prevent the environment from being adversely affected by the disposal of insufficiently treated urban wastewater. The level of treatment currently provided for Margate and Broadstairs does not conform to the Directive. Primary, secondary and UV disinfection treatment has to be provided.

6. Southern Water proposes to pump the wastewater collected in the Broadstairs sewerage

network from the Broadstairs Headworks through a new underground pipeline to the Margate Headworks, where it will join the wastewater collected in Margate’s sewers. The combined flows from the two catchments, which will have received preliminary treatment, will then be pumped through a new underground pipeline to a new works at Weatherlees, where it will receive full treatment. The treated effluent will then be transferred back, through a parallel pipe, to the Margate Headworks for discharge through the existing long sea outfall at Foreness Point. The flow diagram on the following page demonstrates how the flows of wastewater pass through the collection, treatment and discharge points.

7. The scheme now proposed comprises (in brief) the following:

• Improvements to Broadstairs Headworks and Short Sea Outfalls (SSO’s);

• A wastewater pipeline between the Broadstairs and Margate Headworks;

• Improvements to Margate Headworks and SSO’s;

• A new treatment works alongside the existing Weatherlees wastewater Treatment Works, and

• Twin wastewater and treated effluent pipelines connecting Margate Headworks and Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works.

The applications are accompanied by a unilateral undertaking offering £50,000 to

benefit the community in providing local environmental improvement of the cycle network and to enhance the local environment in the vicinity of the proposed development in accordance with planning policy.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.8

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.9

8. Members visited the sites and connecting pipeline routes proposed on 15 November 2004; the notes of that meeting are appended to this report.

9. The scheme is submitted in four separate applications, albeit that it would essentially be one development project. Each application is referenced to a generic Environmental Statement. At Appendix 2 each application is described individually in detail. I now return to considering the project as a whole, but distinguishing between the component parts where necessary. I shall firstly outline the relevant policies, and then consider the alternative sites and Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) assessment. I will then move on to the Appropriate Assessment prior to discussing the proposals.

Main Planning Policy Designations

10. From the cliff top to low water mark, the Thanet Coastline around the Margate

headworks site is designated a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) due to its biological and geomorphologic interest. The Thanet Coast SSSI and Sandwich Bay and Hacklinge Marshes SSSI are designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. Under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC), the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar Site is designated as a Special Protection Area. This area of coastline from the edge of the cliff top to beyond mean low water, is also a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild fauna and flora (92/43/ECC). The Directive, has been enacted in the UK through the Conservation (Natural Habitats, EC) Regulations 1994 commonly known as the Habitats Regulations. The area contains habitat types and/or species that are rare or threatened in the European context. Such habitats include chalk reefs and sea caves for which the area is considered one of the best in the UK. The Habitat Regulations restrict the granting of planning permission for development which is likely to affect the integrity of an SPA or SAC and which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. I shall discuss the implications of the Habitat Regulations an the need for an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ later in this report.

11. The coastline around Foreness Point is designated as Undeveloped Coast in the

adopted Isle of Thanet Local Plan and the following Waters are designated under the EC Bathing Waters Directive. Minnis Bay, Westgate Bay, St Mildred’s Bay, Westbrook Bay, The Bay, Fulsam Rock, Walpole Bay and Botany Bay, in Margate, Joss Bay, Viking Bay and East Cliff (Stone Bay) in Broadstairs.

12. Beside the designations attached to the Thanet Coast there are a number of other

designations that apply to the area around the headworks. The area surrounding Margate headworks is designated Public Open Space, is rich in archaeological remains and is therefore protected through local plan policies.

13. There are several footpaths and bridleways in the area affected by the scheme and part

of the Sustrans National Cycle route follows the coast in this area.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.10

14. The pipeline route from Sloe lane, south of Sacketts Hill Farm to north of the railway line at Cottington Hill runs through a number of Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZ’s). The majority is designated Zone III with the following exceptions:

15. The section of the route through Westwood is designated as Zone II and runs close to

the Rumfields Zone I SPZ. 16. The pipelines run through the Lord of the Manor SPZ. Whilst the majority is through

Zone II, the pipelines do encounter Zone I for a section adjacent to the runway at London Manston Airport.

Policy Context

17. There are extensive planning policy implications relating to these proposals. The policy

issues are set out in detail in the Environmental Statement submitted with the applications. Based upon the above designations and the potential impact of the proposal a summary of the relevant policies and advice follows.

Government Guidance

18. Circular 17/91 - Water Industry Investment: Planning Considerations - acknowledges

that local planning authorities have a key role in facilitating water industry development proposals. It confirms a presumption in favour of the expansion of wastewater treatment facilities in the interests of long term wastewater management, providing the need for such facilities outweigh any adverse land use or environmental impact, and that any such adverse impact is minimised. In considering the environmental impact one must be aware of the sensitive nature conservation and landscape designations. Special care should be exercised in considering proposals which affect designated sites of importance to wildlife (ie SSSI’s, SPA’s, RAMSAR & cSAC’s), where the international significance should normally outweigh development proposals by the water industry. The circular advises “in considering development proposals expeditiously, local planning authorities should nevertheless assess and weigh thoroughly all material considerations and any conflicting demands”.

19. It also acknowledges that siting of water treatment works is constrained by the location

of water companies’ water sources and trunk mains. The choice of process is determined by the regulatory standards to be met. The coastline is also protected by various policies which seek to protect its undeveloped character as well as the scientific nature interest along its length.

20. Government guidance on the location and design of development is contained in

Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Government Circulars. PPGs are to be replaced (through a rolling programme) with focussed statements of national planning policies – Planning Policy Statements (PPS). The Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared in light of this national guidance.

PPG1 - General Policy & Principles PPS1 - Creating Sustainable Communities

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.11

PPG7 - The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development

PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG9 - Nature Conservation PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG10 - Planning and Waste Management PPS10 - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (consultation draft) PPG13 - Transport PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment PPG16 - Archaeology and Planning PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPG20 - Coastal Planning PPG21 - Tourism PPG23 - Planning and Pollution Control PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 - Planning and Noise PPG25 - Development and Flood Risk

Regional Policy

21. RPG9 - Regional Planning Guidance for the South East – The regional context for the

proposed scheme is set out in RPG9, which identifies the following key development principles for the region:

§ Urban areas should be the main focus for development, § Greenfield development should normally take place only after other alternatives have

been considered. § Protection and enhancement of the region’s biodiversity, landscape and built and

historic heritage.

22. RPG 9 includes Margate and Broadstairs in an arc of coastal towns in East Kent

identified as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration (PAER). RPG 9 identifies the development of infrastructure within the PAER as a springboard for economic regeneration. It also calls for local authorities to establish or maintain ongoing liaison with the Environment Agency and statutory sewage undertakers in order to ensure timely and sustainable provision of infrastructure for the supply of water and sewage treatment and discharge systems.

23. During 2004/5, the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) is undertaking a

comprehensive review of RPG 9. SEERA will prepare the draft regional spatial strategy during August – November 2004, with a view to publishing the Draft Proposals for consultation in January – March 2005, and submitting the new South East Plan to the Government by Summer 2005.

24. Regional Economic Strategy for South East England 2002-2012- Effective infrastructure and the sustainable use of natural resources are key objectives of the Regional Economic Strategy (RES), which was published by South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) in 2002. Priority 18 0f the RES calls for sustainable management of water, waste and energy.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.12

Development Plan Policy

Kent Structure Plan 1996

S1 - Seeks to promote sustainable forms of development. S2 - Seeks to conserve and enhance the quality of Kent’s environment. S9 - Highlights the need for co-ordinated implementation, and the relationship

between infrastructure provision and land availability. EK2 - Seeks to improve Thanet’s infrastructure housing, industry business and

tourist facilities whilst maintaining separate identity and protecting areas of national or international importance for nature conservation.

ENV1 Protection of the countryside for its own sake. ENV2 - Conserve and enhance Kent’s landscape and wildlife (flora and fauna) habits. ENV15 - Conserve and enhance the character, quality and functioning of Kent’s built

environment. ENV20 - Seeks to ensure that development is planned and designed so as to avoid or

minimise any potential pollution impacts. ENV22 - Need in relation to environmental and other material interests NR2 - Encourages wastewater treatment development subject to the need

outweighing any environmental impact and that any such adverse impact is minimised.

NR3 - Aims to protect groundwater from development that would have an unacceptable effect on groundwater quality or the yield of water.

25. The Structure Plan emphasises the importance of sustainable planning of water and

wastewater. It says that, of the services needed to sustain new and existing development, water supply, sewerage and wastewater treatment ‘deserve particular consideration’, in view of the cost of using remote supply sources or treatment facilities and possible environmental implications.

26. The Structure Plan acknowledges that significant improvements have been made to the

quality of effluent discharged to watercourses, estuaries and the sea, and the Government’s advice to local authorities to support water industry development proposals. It notes that new or expanded sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities will be needed and that their provision can have significant implications for local environments, but that ‘their location will often be constrained by geology and topography.

Kent Waste Local Plan 1998 27. The Waste Local Plan recognises that the EU Bathing Water Directive and Urban Waste

Water Treatment Directive will require the provision of additional treatment facilities. There are no specific policies for wastewater in the Waste Local Plan. The text refers to the expected need for new treatment facilities for Margate and Broadstairs and acknowledges that the constraints imposed by the pattern of development and the geography of the existing drainage system must be taken into account in considering the location of new wastewater treatment works. The relevant text concludes that proposals of new wastewater treatment works will be supported in principle.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.13

Isle of Thanet Local Plan 1998

28. The Local Plan anticipates that works additional to Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment

Works at Ebbsfleet will be needed in the future to meet the requirements of the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. The Local Plan continues “in view of the landscape and nature conservation constraints at the coast, identified in this Plan, it may be necessary for Southern Water to seek new sites for new treatment plants, probably inland from existing outfalls. The District Council will assist Southern Water in identifying appropriate new sites, and will support such facilities, where there is no significant detrimental impact on other aspects of the Thanet environment.

CL5 - Protection of Areas of Local Landscape Importance. CL7 - Protection of Green Wedges CW1 - Development on the Coast, Protection of sensitive Areas. CW3 - Protection of the Undeveloped Coastline CW4 - Development of Clifftop Sites CW8 - Improvement of wastewater treatment facilities will be supported (subject to

environmental policy). AM3 - Important Archaeological Sites NC1 - Protection of SSSIs.

NC2 - Protection of Special Protection Areas or Ramsar Sites NC4 - Safeguarding of identified habitat corridors SP1 - Protection of Public Open Space SP19 - Protection of Undeveloped Space SP20 - Protection/establishment of Continuous Coastal Footpath

Emerging Planning Policy

The Kent & Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan September 2003

29. The deposit plan reaffirms the need to address the long-standing economic and social

problems of Thanet and confirms that improvements to infrastructure will be required to support economic growth and support accessibility. There is also support for proposals for a new town centre for Thanet at Westwood adjoined by up to 1,000 new dwellings. This latter proposal is relevant when considering locations for the new treatment works.

30. Existing Structure Plan policies to protect the environment are largely reaffirmed, with

policies to conserve river corridors and the undeveloped coast.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.14

31. The Deposit Draft notes that water companies are ‘investing heavily in upgrading (wastewater) treatment processes provided at coastal sites’. The proposed policy for wastewater (the equivalent to Structure Plan Policy NR2) is NR8, the relevant part of which states:

“The development of new or expansion of existing water supply or wastewater facilities will be supported where:

§ There is a demonstrable need to serve existing and /or development proposed in

accordance with the development plan; and

§ This represents the best environmental option; and use and environmental impacts are minimised through appropriate mitigation.”

32. The principle change in the strategic context since the adoption of the Kent Structure

Plan has been the inclusion of Ashford and the Thames Gateway as two of the Government’s four growth areas for the South East. The development of the Ashford growth area is likely to result in significant development within the catchment of the River Stour placing additional pressure on the River’s resources. This is a relevant consideration when assessing possible strategies for discharging treated effluent from a new treatment works to serve Margate and Broadstairs.

Thanet Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003

33. Objections to the Deposit Draft were considered at the Local Plan inquiry, which officially

closed on Wednesday 29 September. Thanet District Council does not anticipate receiving the Inspector’s Report until July 2005; with a view to adopting the Local Plan in July 2006. The Draft plan acknowledges and promotes the ‘coastline of exceptional quality’ and ‘the maintenance of a quality of environment that will ensure the area remains attractive to visitors, residents and inward investors alike’. The Local Plan acknowledges that ‘development defined within the local plan or higher environmental standards may require additions to wastewater treatment capacity in Thanet. Where a need for such facilities is identified, the District Council will assist Southern Water in identifying appropriate new sites, and will support such facilities, where there is no significant detrimental impact on other aspects of the Thanet environment, as reflected in the policies of this Plan’. (paragraph 13.85)

34. Draft Policy EP 14 states that “The provision of improved wastewater treatment facilities

will be supported.” 35. The Plan sets out in detail proposals for Westwood Town Centre and adjoining

residential development which, as noted above, are supported by the emerging Structure Plan. These proposals, along with confirmation that proposals for development in the Green Wedge, a settlement separation designation, will be refused unless it is essential for it to be located there, are relevant to consideration of possible locations for a new treatment works.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.15

Alternatives and Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) Assessment

36. Schedule 4, Part 1 (2) of the EIA Regulations requires the applicant to outline the main

alternatives studied and give an indication of the main reasons for the scheme proposed, taking into account environmental effects. A full analysis of the alternatives considered is detailed in chapter 6 of the ES.

37. The Applicant took the principles of waste management set out in PPG10 as the basis

for the analysis of alternative options. However I would agree that some elements of government advice cannot readily be applied to wastewater; for example the requirement of regional self-sufficiency is more relevant to other waste streams. That being said it is still relevant to consider the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for the proposal. This procedure as set out in PPG10 establishes “for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term”.

38. The Applicants submit that the BPEO analysis for the Margate and Broadstairs scheme

needed to be in the context of an overall strategy, because the fundamental decision that had to be made concerned the location of the treatment works and the discharge point. Whilst this decision was informed by more detailed matters (for example the physical extent of the treatment works may depend in part on the type of treatment plant to be installed) the most significant question, the Applicant argued, was whether the proposed extension of Thanet’s wastewater infrastructure (i.e. treatment works, discharge points and connecting sewers) is, from environmental, operational and engineering points of view, and in the light of the existing committed infrastructure, has been directed to the right areas and point locations. I am satisfied that this was a logical and reasonable approach to the BPEO assessment for this scheme.

39. The next steps were to identify the decision criteria for assessing the alternatives

against. These were identified following discussions with key stakeholders, of which the County Council was one. Compliance with legislation. It was essential that the proposals provide wastewater treatment facilities to standards that comply with European directives and relevant UK regulations relating to wastewater, and marine water quality. Compliance with the statutory development plan. The proposal should as far as possible accord with the development plan and government planning and environmental guidance. Feasibility. The scheme must be feasible in engineering terms. Practicability. The scheme must be practicable in operational terms. Deliverability. The scheme must have a good prospect of being granted consent, being constructed and brought in to operation as soon as possible.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.16

Nature Conservation. This was considered to be of prime importance because of the number of national and international nature conservation designations in the area, especially affecting the marine and fluvial environments. Socio-economic. This was also considered a high priority. The relative economic disadvantage of the Thanet area, and the policy imperative of regeneration, requires a solution that improves the water environment (the stage or backdrop for many economically significant activities) without obtrusive infrastructure or adversely affecting key employment generators.

Best use of existing wastewater infrastructure. Whilst not ruling out radical adaptation, this was considered important for the practical reasons of economy and the efficient operation of a system whose fundamentals have been established for over a century. It was also related to the preference of the development plan, supported by government advice, for the use of previously developed land and a sequential approach to the selection of sites. Local amenity. The impacts of the construction activity, the impacts on the public use and enjoyment of the coast and related open space and the possibility of malodour from the treatment process. Cultural heritage. The archaeological record in Thanet is relatively rich. All options were likely to affect known sites. Landscape and visual implications. Important if significant structures were required in sensitive locations, especially on the coast. Accidental risks. Significant in the context of the potential implications for nature conservation arising from malfunction of treatment processes.

Identification of Options

40. The review identified three possible ways in which improved treatment could be provided

to meet the objectives:

§ One of the existing wastewater treatment works (at Foreness Point or North Foreland) could be upgraded or extended;

§ A new treatment works could be constructed somewhere within the or outside the sewerage catchments; or

§ Wastewater could be transferred to another works elsewhere (which would require extension) for treatment.

41. A decision on which of these strategies is BPEO the Applicant argued is linked, but not

dependent on, the choice between two basic discharge options for the treated effluent: § Use of an existing sea outfall, or § Construction of a new outfall, either to the sea or to an inland watercourse.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.17

42. Essentially river discharge provides much less dilution than discharge to sea. The River Stour is the only surface watercourse in the vicinity of Margate and Broadstairs with a flow sufficient to be potentially capable of receiving treated effluent discharge. However the River Stour system would be at significant risk for environmental reasons (including impacts on internationally designated habitats) if it were to be used for discharge from this catchment area. This point will be expanded upon later in this report.

43. The existing Foreness Point Long Sea Outfall (LSO) was identified as the preferred sea discharge point for both practical and environmental reasons. It is the only existing outfall with sufficient capacity to take the full flow from the Margate and Broadstairs sewerage catchment and it discharges at the most advantageous point on the coastline for dispersion. The construction of a new outfall at a different location on the Thanet coast would give rise to new local environmental impacts, which would not be offset by environmental advantages. In any event a storm overflow at Foreness Point would still be necessary, along with the corresponding environmental from construction, for all

options. The use of the Foreness Point LSO to discharge treated effluent would result in a significant improvement in water quality around the LSO, compared to the current standard of discharge (simple screens and de-gritting). Use of the Broadstairs outfalls would also cease other than for storm water discharges.

Treatment Works Location Options

44. A review of the planning and policy framework revealed no entirely unconstrained site in

the urban areas of Thanet. Forty-seven potential sites were assessed for advantages and disadvantages and a short list for detailed study was produced. Weight was then given to the need to avoid the unnecessary use of presently undeveloped, or ‘greenfield’ land. Three previously developed sites within the urban area, including Margate Headworks, and the land within the operational boundary of the existing Weatherlees WTW (previously used land although outside the urban area) were shortlisted. To assist the review these sites were also considered against the best greenfield site option which had been identified. This site (close to the edge of the urban area at Half Mile Ride) had good access and was considered to represent a reasonable prospect of being able to sensitively relate a new treatment works to existing development. However there was concern that a major housing allocation within the Local Plan would bring housing within 200 metres of the site. In addition, the site is in productive agricultural use in the open countryside.

45. The review concluded that the Weatherlees site was the strategic best practicable

environmental option for the location of the new treatment facilities. It would maximise the use of Southern Water’s existing operational site at Weatherlees (which is previously developed land in a location relatively remote from sensitive land uses) and minimise the additional land requirements and construction activity at the existing headworks at Foreness Point and North Foreland (which are closer to dwellings and recreational areas, and partly within a sensitive European designated nature conservation area). It also offered economy of operation being adjacent to the existing treatment facilities.

46. It also concluded that there was still a major role in the wastewater system for the

Margate Headworks in terms of preliminary treatment of wastewater and storm water storage.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.18

Evaluating Pipeline Options

47. The chosen option for the treatment works and discharge point require the transfer of

wastewater and treated effluent between the principle wastewater facilities at Margate, Broadstairs and Weatherlees.

48. An assessment of the alternative route and method of construction (either open cut or

utilising tunnelling) was based on a number of factors. Namely, the most direct route with the least environmental impact, minimisation of construction time, thereby minimising temporary impacts and ensuring there would be no significant permanent impacts. Consideration was also given to minimising disruption to traffic flow, following field boundaries rather than cutting through open agricultural land, and minimising the length of pipeline crossing the groundwater protection zone.

49. The choice of pipeline route is roughly in accordance with that selected for the previously consented sludge transfer pipeline. An advantage of the choice of this route is that the environmental impacts have already been assessed and no new issues of principle are therefore raised.

50. This assessment demonstrates how the Applicants arrived at the proposed scheme

which is now being put forward, and is considered further in the discussion section of my report.

Appropriate Assessment

51. Where a project is likely to have a significant effect on conservation objectives of a

European designated site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and it is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (The Habitats Regulations) require that an appropriate assessment of the impacts be carried out.

52. Whilst the process of EIA and Appropriate Assessment are legally separate, they require

similar data. The ES submitted with the applications therefore provides data on which the Appropriate Assessment can be based.

53. English Nature has advised that an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken in respect of the Thanet Coast candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC), the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar site. For the purposes of determining the planning applications, the County Council is the relevant ‘competent authority’.

54. The other relevant competent authorities (required to carry out Appropriate Assessment)

for the project are: § Environment Agency – the regulatory authority for discharge and other consents. Its

jurisdiction extends 3 miles offshore. § Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) – consenting agency

for a Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) licence (works to provide new storm outfall and to existing short sea outfalls at North Foreland) and now also

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.19

consenting agency for works under the Coast Protection Act (potential danger to navigation)

55. All the competent authorities (along with English Nature and the Applicants) have taken

an active role in the key stakeholders meeting and each have agreed to a protocol for carrying out the assessments. Both the EA and DEFRA (Marine Consents and Environment Unit – MCEU) are well underway with their own assessments, but are unable to issue any decisions until the planning implications have been assessed under the Habitats Regulations.

56. Consultation has been carried out with the other competent authorities and Thanet District Council to ensure that all plans and projects which may have an in combination effect were considered properly in the assessment of the planning proposals. The views of English Nature, the agency responsible for advising upon the significance of the effects of the proposals upon the conservation objectives of the European designated sites, were sought. English Nature have advised that the areas likely to have a significant effect are:

§ SPA Features – wintering turnstone

§ Ramsar Features – wintering turnstone

§ CSAC Features – chalk reef 57. EN has also confirmed that the information provided within the Environmental Statement

that accompanies the planning applications is adequate for the purposes of the appropriate assessment.

58. The purpose of the appropriate assessment is to assess the implications of the proposals in respect of the site’s ‘conservation objectives’. The conclusions of the assessment should enable the competent authority to ascertain whether the proposal would adversely affect the integrity of the site. Planning permission should not be granted until the assessment has concluded positively.

59. The Agency has confirmed that eutrophication1 will be the subject of their appropriate

assessment under the Habitats Regulations. In discussion with English Nature it has been concluded that on the basis of the information currently available the discharges will not cause an adverse affect on the interest features of the sites. The Agency also considers that the proposed continuous discharge from the outfalls, in combination with storm discharges at Broadstairs, for which there is an extant consent, will be liable to have a significant effect but their preliminary assessment is that together these would not result in adverse effect upon the interest feature of the designated conservation sites. They can however foresee no obstacles to the completion of determination of the discharge consent applications and issue of the consents.

60. The MCEU has also written outlining their position with regard to the applications they are currently handling and the appropriate assessment. They conclude that there will be no adverse effect upon the interest features of the SPA, Ramsar and candidate Thanet Coast SAC provided that:

1 Eutrophication - The process by which a body of water becomes rich in a dissolved nutrient, thereby encouraging the growth and decomposition of oxygen-depleting plant life and resulting in harm to other organisms.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.20

§ No works on the marine elements of the scheme (i.e. those below the mean high

water spring tide mark) that give rise to significant noise or vibration be undertaken during the period from the beginning of October through to the end of April so as to avoid disturbance to wintering turnstones

§ Directional drilling techniques are used to bore the Margate tunnel at a distance

of at least 6 metres below the seabed so as to mitigate any effect upon the chalk reef

61. Any licence/consent issued would also incorporate conditions that would:

§ necessitate any dewatering excavation of the seaward sections of the works to be conducted in accordance with any conditions required by the Environment Agency;

§ require removal from the site of the works all excavated chalk and broken

concrete and cast iron from the redundant outfall section; § specify the need to avoid the release of wet concrete into marine waters; § require the provision of suitable bunding and storage facilities to prevent the

release into marine waters of any fuel oils, lubricating fluids etc; § limit any moorings in the vicinity of the works for pontoon barges or other vessels

to be temporary and only when necessary for safe and efficient working, and § restrict access by vehicles and other plant over the foreshore so as to minimise

any damage to chalk platforms.

62. Like their EA colleagues they confirm that as things stand at present they can foresee no reason why they should not grant both the FEPA licence and CPA consent.

63. I have carried out an Appropriate Assessment on behalf of the County Council and also considered the in-combination effects of the development of Turner Contemporary, the construction of which is likely to take place around the same time. I have concluded that whilst the proposed development (project) could adversely affect the integrity of the site the imposition of conditions/restrictions would avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the site. The latest draft of the assessment is appended to this report; it is expected that it will be completed following final consultation (currently underway) with English Nature. I will update Members verbally at the committee meeting.

Consultees

64. Thanet District Council – no objection subject to conditions relating to odour management, traffic management, impacts of construction activities, appropriate reinstatement etc.,

Environment Agency – no objection subject to protection measures for water voles, details of works to or to cross watercourses, details of dewatering, disposal options for spoil, pollution prevention measures for construction compounds, and increased protection for groundwater protection areas and likely sites of contamination in relation to tunnelling works.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.21

English Nature – no objection in principle but sought additional information on various ecological issues which are addressed in the addendum to the ES. EN endorse the proposal to have an Ecological Clerk of Works supervising key stages of the construction programme and the precautionary approach; they have no further comments upon the proposals.

Health and Safety Executive – no objection

Kent Wildlife Trust – no objection subject to submission of further ecological information and mitigation measures, further comment upon the addendum awaited.

GOSE (Rural Team) – no objection

DEFRA Marine Consents Environment Unit – views awaited

SEEDA – support the applications

CPRE – object – consider that this wastewater should be re-used as a valuable water resources; and that application 3 should be amended to remove the return transfer pipeline and that an application for discharge of the treated effluent to the river upstream of the existing works be submitted.

EDF (formerly SEEBOARD) – no objection

Transco – no objection

National Grid – no objection

Manston Airport – views awaited

English Heritage – no objection subject to a detailed programme of archaeological works

Traffic Planning – no objection in principle detailed comments upon working areas, traffic management and access arrangements have been discussed with the applicants at a recent meeting. Many of these issues will be detailed in the Construction Code of Practice whose implementation could be conditioned.

Jacobs Babtie (noise and air quality) – satisfied that the potential for detriment to residential amenity at the closest odour sensitive receivers is minimised (following submission of the addendum), again restricted hours of construction could be conditioned through the Construction Code of Practice.

Jacobs Babtie (geo-technical) – foreseeable risks and the mitigation measures have

reduced the risks to a low classification, however response procedures should be agreed in advance should the unlikely event of instability occur at Foreness Point. These details would be required by condition.

Jacobs Babtie (landscaping) – no objection in principle but offer detailed comments

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.22

on the proposed scheme to minimise visual intrusion.

Public Rights of Way – no objection in principle however detailed comments on closure periods, user separation and diversions as well as compensatory measures have been discussed with the applicant at a recent meeting. The undertaking to provide some funding to be put towards local environmental enhancements is to be welcomed.

County Archaeologist – no objection subject to the Written Scheme of Investigation previously agreed with the applicants being updated to take account any scheme alterations and in particular the maritime interest at Margate and the new works at Weatherlees.

Conservation Officer – no objection

Environment and Ecology Biodiversity Officer – awaiting further response to addendum which provides greater ecological detail as requested.

Broadstairs and St Peters – no views received

Manston Parish Council – unanimously supports the proposals, have made some detailed comment.

Minster Parish Council – no views received

Cliffsend Parish Council – no objection, with some detailed comments which have been passed onto the applicants.

Department for Transport – no views received.

Local Member

65. The Local Members Mr J Fullarton, Mr W Whelan, Mr F Fox, Mr A Poole, Mr R Ford, Mr R Christian, and Mr J Kirkby were notified of the application on 28 July 2004. No comments have been received to date. Further consultation upon the addendum to the ES was carried out on 19 October 2004, no comments have been received to date.

Representations

66. The applications have been advertised in the local newspaper and by way of a number

of site notices posted around the two Headworks, along the route of the pipeline and in the vicinity of Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works. An extensive neighbour notification exercise was also undertaken with a total of 933 letters being sent out. Representations from 21 parties have been received. Some representations were specific to one or other of the four applications whilst a number were relevant to all four. A summary of the comments follows:

Application 1 – Works to the Broadstairs Headworks and construction of a wastewater transfer pipeline to connect the Broadstairs and Margate Headworks.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.23

• The pipeline between Broadstairs and Margate would pass through the last remaining stretch of unspoiled coastline in Thanet; an area of natural beauty enjoyed by both visitors and residents alike, the fragility of the ecosystem should remain undisturbed.

• There are fears that the laying of the pipeline will damage the stability of the chalk sub-base and contribute to erosion.

• The appropriateness of burying of the pipeline in the best environmental option exercise is questioned.

• An alternative route to tie in with the transfer pipeline down to Weatherlees is suggested, bypassing Margate.

Application 2 – Works to the Margate Headworks

No specific comments

Application 3 – Construction of twin wastewater and treated effluent pipeline between Margate Headworks and Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works.

• Tunnelling should not go under any properties

• Air vents should be sited away from properties in open fields where any obnoxious odours would cause less nuisance.

• The section of pipeline between points 8-9 cuts through a proposed development of 1,000 residential units, in particular the route will affect the residential area and will also pass adjacent to the proposed primary school. It should be re-routed to follow the water main.

• There will be a significant period of disturbance during construction of the pipeline especially from nearby compounds, noise, dust and dirt will cause a nuisance. Security will be an issue in the compounds with the possibility of vandalism. What safeguards will be put in place to safeguard and protect the pedestrians and cyclists that use the local track. The compounds will cut off walking access to the park, bus stop and church forcing us to use a very busy and dangerous road.

• Guarantees should be given that all temporary and compounds will be removed and put back as original.

• There should be no damage to boundary walls from stockpiling of materials in the compounds.

• The pipeline may damage the roots of trees which offer privacy and security Additional to representations received from local residents upon application 3 the following organisation has also commented:

• Stour Fishery Association – The Association is against the return pumping of treated sewage from Weatherlees to Margate for disposal to sea, because;

§ it is a waste of a valuable resource in a region which is very short of fresh water; § the Stour is under considerable pressure from the growth of Ashford and is

dangerously low in flow in the summer months and because of - the high proportion of treated effluent has vigorous growth of weed in the lower reaches which attracts silt and blocks the mouth of the river;

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.24

§ Mid Kent Water plan, in the longer term to build a reservoir at Broad Oak, Canterbury and to pump water to it from Plucks Gutter in times of high flow to store for the future use of Ashford. This will further reduce the flow of the river at its mouth;

§ it is now possible to treat effluent to a very high standard, as shown by the Langford Sewage Works in Essex. The standard for Weatherlees should be the same and it will be required under the European Directive;

§ if treated to these standards it could be pumped upstream to Plucks Gutter, thus increasing the flow in the lower reaches and be available to be pumped to Broad Oak in times of high flow for use in Ashford which would be cheaper than pumping it back to Margate and would produce the much needed extra water to the River Stour and area;

(THESE POINTS ARE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED LATER IN THE REPORT)

Application 4 – Construction of a new wastewater treatment works at Weatherlees. The prevailing winds often carry noxious smells and fumes from the works across the golf course, increasing the throughput may add to this problem unless adequate odour control measures are in place. This should be controlled by a planning condition. All Applications

• Both the environment and residents of the area will benefit greatly from these

overdue improvements, strong support for all four applications.

• Will there be odour from the air vents?

• Access along Broadley Road must be available at all times

• There should be a limit on the length of construction time for this project.

• Residents must have access to Princess Margaret Avenue and the coastal road. The scheme should meet the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (SI 2003/1788).

• The effluent should be re-used before disposal is considered an option especially as the area is short of water resources.

• Disposal to sea is a low technology solution; it could be treated to high quality water.

• There is no assessment of the energy costs involved in pumping the effluent back to Margate.

• If the waste is left untreated would it cause unemployment, or if it were disposed of to an alternative location would it further improve the bathing water quality and thus employment prospects.

• There is no detail as to what will take place in the construction compounds and when.

• The use of a private vehicular access during construction is unacceptable when there is an adopted road in close proximity that is available.

• The use of compounds will result in damage to nearby access tracks from construction vehicles.

• The proposal will result in the need to close or divert public footpaths.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.25

• The pipeline could have been routed across the golf course at Spratling Street to avoid disturbance to residential properties.

• Increased traffic near Palm Bay School will result in a higher risk of an accident.

Additional to representations received from local residents upon all of the applications the following organisations have also commented:

• Downstream Interests Group (The Great Stour Navigation – Kent) – Main grounds for objection are:

§ Could not the flows from Ramsgate, Deal and Sandwich be combined with

flows from Margate and Broadstairs and be discharged through the long sea outfall at Foreness, thus reducing the pollutant load in the River Stour. It would also enable a higher level of treatment for all flows.

§ There is little detail of what controls would be put in place in times of system failure, storm overflow or severe flood to limit environmental damage given the works is below sea level.

§ There is no mention of the impact of the Weatherlees project on the tourism and recreational uses of the River Stour.

§ Could only support return to the Stour to replenish supplies if it did not add to the pollutant load.

§ The current levels of pollutants is encouraging weed growth resulting in higher levels of siltation to the detriment of navigation.

§ Southern Water should be persuaded to both improve its existing and future effluent processes to include nutrient stripping, disinfection, filtration and any other processes necessary to remove all pollutants; and to examine the potential benefits of fully combining the existing and proposed Weatherlees plants.

• CPRE (Canterbury District Committee) – Main grounds for objection are:

§ Canterbury could be the potential site of an inland reservoir to treat Thanet’s effluent in the future (to enable re-use);

§ Discharge inland would benefit the river and increase available water resources;

§ Support the funding of a new conservation post within the Thanet Coast Partnership but believe that support should be carried to protecting the coastline by using inland discharge.

§ Discharging at Foreness Point requires pipework with disturbance to the shore and seabed, thus affecting the marine ecosystem.

§ It is disappointing that the major investment in works completed between 1985 and 1990 now needs augmenting, hope this isn’t a quick fix that will cost more in the longer term.

§ One of the four short listed options was release of treated water into the Stour

§ Discharge to the Stour would benefit the users of the river by avoiding times of low flow as well as offering environmental benefits.

§ CPRE Kent show inland treatment to be feasible and cost effective § Would compensate for climate change § Inland discharge would reduce saline intrusion and enable marsh feeding to

continue for longer, thus benefiting agriculture and the ecology of the ditches

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.26

§ If two pipes down to Weatherlees were retained one could be used as an alternative if the other became blocked, they could provide additional stormwater storage capacity, they would use less energy to pump return flows

§ Southern Water should put their energies into alternative means of dealing with stormwater

§ Anaerobic digestion producing methane should be used to counter-act the climate change impacts of the system

§ Being adjacent to the Richborough site, the effluent could be desalinated using waste heat from potential power generation on the site next door.

(AGAIN MANY OF THESE POINTS ARE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED LATER IN THE REPORT)

Discussion

67. Section 54A of the 1990 Act requires that applications are determined in accordance with the

Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This proposal will need to be considered in the light of the adopted and the emerging development plan policies relating to this type of development. These must then be balanced against the environmental and amenity impacts such a proposal may have, and in the light of the relevant policies of the Thanet District Local Plan.

68. It is important to acknowledge that the proposed scheme is required to ensure

compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It is one of only two schemes in the UK that currently fails to meet European treatment targets.

69. The positive impact of the proposed scheme on bathing water quality and Thanet’s

reputation as a coastal destination with a number of popular resorts will be of particular value to the local economy. In turn the improvements would contribute to reducing unemployment, since the type of jobs that would be created are likely to provide direct replacements for the employment lost in recent years in Margate and Broadstairs. This would contribute to the economic development and regeneration objectives for Thanet, particularly so in view of the relatively close geographical location of the Turner Contemporary building.

70. Consequently the proposal is considered to be in general accordance with the policies

and proposals of the current development plan in as outlined at the ‘Planning Policy’ chapter, in that it would result in improvements to the quality of the treated effluent to the benefit of Thanet’s economic prosperity.

Environmental Impacts of the Scheme

71. Although the proposals are divided into four planning application areas, consideration of

the potential impacts of the development can essentially be grouped into three parts, development at the coast, the new works and the pipeline in between. The scheme is therefore considered in three parts, i.e. the works proposed around the existing Margate and Broadstairs Headworks, including the pipeline to transfer wastewater from Broadstairs to Margate; the twin transfer pipelines between the Margate Headworks and

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.27

the Weatherlees WTW, and the new treatment works at Weatherlees. The Environmental Statement, which follows this division, includes a detailed analysis of the impact of each element of the development upon various environmental criteria. There follows a summary of those main impacts for each area of proposed development.

Margate and Broadstairs

Marine Environment 72. The proposals overall are designed to contribute to the improvement of the water quality

in the Thanet area. The normal discharge from the Margate LSO will consist solely of secondary biological treated effluent, which has been disinfected by means of ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. Intermittent storm spills (authorised and monitored by the Environment Agency) from the storm outfalls and LSO’s at Margate and Broadstairs would benefit from improved screening which would reduce the amount of sanitary and other debris.

The level of construction work at Foreness Point is considerably reduced from that of previously consented schemes, thereby further reducing the impact upon this coastal location. However, during construction some mitigation measures would be required to ensure that suspended sediment, low salinity discharges from dewatering and the risk from potential accidental releases are controlled. Any residual construction impacts are anticipated to be local, temporary and of low significance. The effect of these impacts has also been considered during the Appropriate Assessment process and was found not to be significant. The Environment Agency with specific responsibility for handling the Discharge Consent Application, will be considering the details of the coastal discharge and fully assessing the impacts upon the marine environment.

Ecology

73. It is concluded that there are no significant impacts on designated sites arising from the

construction phase. The use of tunnelling to construct the new storm outfall at Margate and beneath the most sensitive areas of nature conservation importance between Broadstairs and Margate minimises the potential damage. It is acknowledged that there will be a temporary loss of habitat through the open construction areas, but this disruption is considered to be short term and reversible, subject to appropriate restoration.

74. The potential for impacts on birds would be minimised by constraining disturbing activities away from nesting birds and the cliff-top edge. Works on the foreshore would largely be undertaken outside of the winter period. Amended working periods have been agreed with English Nature and could be conditioned. Additionally it is proposed that an ecological clerk of works would be appointed to provide expert advice and guidance on the most appropriate locations for working areas and access arrangements.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.28

Geology

75. The Thanet coast is designated a SSSI because of its biological, geological and

geomorphological features of interest. In particular the site exhibits one of the most extensive shore platforms (a rock surface planed off by the action of the sea) cut across chalk anywhere in Britain. The proposal to tunnel a new storm outfall under the chalk reef at Foreness Point rather than open cut will minimise any potential damage to the SSSI. English Nature area satisfied with this approach.

76. The works at Margate Headworks are reduced from those previously considered and I

am satisfied that with the construction management and mitigation measures proposed that there will be no adverse effects upon the geology of the area. Cliff stability is an issue that has been raised by a third party. Regular weekly inspections of the cliff face by a qualified geologist would be carried out during construction to identify and record any spalling or accelerated cliff degradation. It is also proposed that drainage and traffic management measures would be employed on the cliff top to ensure there would be no significant impact upon cliff stability and geology. The County Councils geological/structural engineer advises that all potential risks have been adequately considered and addressed. It is proposed that should permission be granted response procedures in the unlikely event of instability occurring at Foreness Point would be included in a Construction Code of Practice required for approval through a planning condition.

Ground and Surface Water

77. During the excavation phase of construction at the Margate Headworks, a temporary

borehole would be used to dewater excavated areas. Whilst not affecting other borehole yields in the area it may cause a temporary increase in the salinity of the abstracted water at the Margate Headworks. It may be possible that if and when a detailed construction contract were to be drawn up additional discharge consents may be required for dewatering. This is a position that both the Environment Agency and English Nature are aware of and satisfied with.

78. All construction activities would conform to the appropriate standards of pollution

prevention and there is therefore negligible risk of pollution affecting groundwater resources and abstractions.

Air Quality

79. At issue here would be dust generated during construction and odour releases from the

headwork’s and the transfer pipeline. Subject to agreeing a strategy for handling complaints and excessive monitoring results for dust the County Council’s air quality adviser is satisfied. Such a strategy could be agreed in the Construction Code of Practice which could be secured by condition.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.29

Noise

80. No significant increases to the existing background noise levels have been identified at

Broadstairs and Margate Headworks, although temporary significant noise impacts would be experienced at noise sensitive properties along open cut sections of the Broadstairs to Margate pipeline route. Mitigation measures (such as acoustic screening and directional drilling) would be employed on site to minimise any noise impacts on nearby noise sensitive receptors. Normal hours of working would be employed in the main and it would be possible to control any work outside of these hours by condition. Jacobs Babtie are satisfied with this position.

Archaeology

81. There is a high probability of an impact upon the historic environment, notably buried

archaeological remains. A Written Scheme of Investigation is being prepared in consultation with the County Archaeologist and would need to take account of the maritime interests at Margate.

Landscape and Visual

82. It is acknowledged that the addition of the stack at the Margate Headworks would introduce a new feature on the skyline, however its height is at the minimum to meet health and safety requirements. The extended Margate Headworks has been sensitively designed so as to minimise visual impact. It is not considered that any of the works would have any significant long-term impacts upon the landscape quality of the area.

Recreation and Tourism

83. The improved quality of treated effluent discharged from Foreness Point is designed to

have a significant positive impact upon the quality of the bathing waters of the area. Any impacts on recreational activity would be temporary and during the construction period. Mitigation measures in respect of visual, noise and air quality would limit any impacts upon recreational activities during construction to being of a minor significance.

84. It would be necessary to close the Foreness Point miniature golf course for one season and there would also be some temporary visual and noise disturbance to users of North Foreland Golf Course, beaches, public open space, roads, footpaths and bridleway TM1A during the construction period. KCC’s Public Rights of Way team has expressed some concern about periods of closure for some PROW’s. It would be Southern Water’s intention to temporarily close public footpaths and bridleways for the minimum period necessary, although they submit that there may be circumstances beyond their control, which necessitate an extension to the period of closure.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.30

Agriculture

85. The construction of the Broadstairs to Margate pipeline would involve the temporary

disturbance of approximately 0.3ha of best and most versatile agricultural land. To protect against the downgrading of this land during the open cut construction, method statements for soil handling could be prepared, agreed and implemented through planning conditions.

Twin Pipeline Elements

Ecology

86. No significant loss is envisaged from any of the adjacent sites covered by nature

conservation designations during construction of the pipeline. English Nature is satisfied with the surveys which have not identified the presence of any protected species. It also supports the construction best practice of ensuring there are no impacts upon ecological interests by having a ‘final sweep’ just prior to entering a site.


87. All significant adverse impacts are associated with the construction phase of the

development and as such would be temporary. The compounds associated with tunnelling and pipejacking would be lit to facilitate overnight working, resulting in adverse visual impact of high significance on neighbouring properties during the construction phase. However on completion of pipe laying, all temporary fencing would be removed and the disturbed area would be reinstated.

88. The main residual visual impact of the twin pipeline would be the air valves and wash out

chambers within the open landscape. However these would be located at field boundaries and finished level with existing levels wherever possible.

Agriculture

89. Only the sections that are open cut would have an impact on agricultural land.

Approximately 12.6ha of best and most versatile land would be disturbed. Given the quantity of good quality farmland the temporary disturbance of this relatively small area of land, whilst constituting an adverse impact would be of only slight significance.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

90. Again given the rich archaeological heritage in Thanet it is likely that there will be an

impact upon on a range of archaeological remains, although no Scheduled Monuments would be affected by the pipeline proposals. The County Archaeologist has negotiated with the Applicants upon previous schemes to considerably reduce the easement width

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.31

of the pipeline route. This along with an agreed written scheme of investigation secured by condition would satisfy the County Archaeologist.


91. As stated earlier the construction of the twin pipeline would result in temporary impacts.

Activities within the Manston Golf Course could require part of the greens to be closed off for the duration of the works, compensation would be provided. There would of course be direct disruption to public rights of way, bridleways and cycle routes where the pipeline route crosses or runs alongside these. Mitigation measures such as appropriate temporary surfacing, fencing and controlled use to allow safe passage across the working area. During any temporary path diversion or closure, rights of way signs would be erected warning users of the extent of the temporary closures. The northern section of the pipeline route runs adjacent to the proposed Northdown Avenue to Westwood Cycle Route. It is proposed that any reinstatement would be carried out mindful of the wish to establish this route. A proportion of the financial benefits secured for environmental improvements would be put towards measures to support the cycleway.

Noise and Vibration 92. The open cut sections of the pipeline are linear and the noise sources from the works

would largely be mobile although quite significant to sensitive receptors. However appropriate mitigation and noise management measures would reduce these to a minimum. If pipejacking of the twin pipeline under the railway is completed in a single continuous operation, including night time working, this would produce very substantial noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive property, although this would be completed in 2-3 days, or 5 days of intermittent working.

Air Quality 93. During construction air quality impacts would be confined to dust impacts and with

appropriate mitigation and management measures these could be reduced to a minimum. The County Council’s air quality advisors accept that any impact will be temporary.

94. Once operational, the only potential impacts of the pipeline on air quality would be from

the air release valves. Concern has been expressed about this issue. These valves are designed to expel air when there are pressure changes within the pipeline; this air has the potential to be moderately odorous. The first measure in avoiding odour impacts at air valves would be to use ferric dosing at Margate Headworks, which would control septicity of the wastewater during the transfer via pipeline to Weatherlees. Additionally as a precautionary measure should any adverse odour impacts arise, provision to retro-fit activated carbon filters would be incorporated in to the design and construction of the air release valves, where they re located close to residential properties. It is proposed that theses air valves would be regularly tested and maintained.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.32


95. The majority of the twin pipeline route crosses the chalk aquifer and it crosses

groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZ) at Westwood and London Manston Airport. The greatest risk of groundwater pollution along the pipeline route would be from accidental release of wastewater from the pipe. As agreed with the Environment Agency it is proposed there would be increased protection measures in the vulnerable zones. Theses would include being sleeved within a tunnel and across the SPZ II a continuous steel pipeline with welded joints and an external concrete surround.

Contaminated Land

96. Generally levels of ground contamination in the area between Margate and Weatherlees

are likely to be low, as most of the surrounding land has been used over the years for agricultural or residential purposes. However appropriate working practices would be adopted to minimise risk from exposure to contamination during construction and to ensure proper disposal and reuse of spoil. The area surrounding London Manston Airport would also be surveyed d for unexploded bombs.

Weatherlees Wastewater Treatment Works Element

Air Quality

97. There would be a number of temporary construction activities which would have the

potential to generate dust effects which could affect nearby sensitive receptors. Good environmental protection and working practices to limit dust generation and control the emission of dust would reduce these to a minimum.

98. During the scheme operation the main potential impact from the site would be odour

emissions generated by the various treatment processes on site. The site has experienced some odour problems from the existing treatment works in the past. Following negotiations the Applicants submitted additional information as part of the addendum to the Environmental Statement addressing specific odour concerns. It was agreed that an odour standard would be applied to the Margate and Broadstairs scheme to protect public amenity and that details of the odour control measures and equipment to be deployed would be given.

99. The County Council’s air quality advisor has been consulted upon these details and accepts the odour standard used by Southern Water. Current best practice includes the use of an Odour Management Plan to summarise foreseeable events that may compromise the operator’s ability to prevent/reduce the release of odours. The Addendum covers both routine and non-routine operational issues satisfactorily. At Weatherlees an Odour Control and Management Strategy is being proposed. It has been agreed that this would ensure compliance with the odour standard at the closest odour sensitive receivers and includes a new odour control unit, identification of appropriate abatement procedures, quality controlled specification, installation and commissioning of equipment and ongoing performance monitoring and review.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.33

Noise and Vibration

100. The main impacts to sensitive receptors would be during the construction phase and it

is considered that the landscape bund around the site and the existing buildings would provide some noise screening. Where this were not the case noise mitigation measures and good practice measures would be employed to remove, mitigate or control noise impacts at source. As the closest noise sensitive property Ebbsfleet Farm would be approximately 250m from the general development area and as such Jacobs Babtie are satisfied that the potential for detriment to residential amenity is not significant.

101. The construction plant and method of piling proposed is not expected to generate

sufficient ground borne vibration to impact upon residential properties. This is largely due to the distance between the construction areas and the nearby properties and the soft ground conditions that would dissipate impacts.

Ecology

102. However the area does support habitats and species of conservation importance.

Chapter 31 of the ES and the addendum to the ES set out the mitigation measures to be employed where there would be some impact upon ecological interests. These include appropriate timing of construction events to avoid bird breeding season, translocating reptiles and enhancement of alternative local habitats. English Nature support these proposals and the precautionary approach of undertaking detailed searches of the development footprint for invertebrates to establish whether food plants or larvae should be relocated.


103. The existing large developments in the area, particularly Richborough Power Station

and the wind turbine tend to dominate the landscape in the area. Glimpses into this site are primarily from the higher ground some distance to the north. The removal and realignment of the planted bund along the southern boundary has the potential to temporarily affect the landscape character and increase the visual impact of the construction activities. However impacts would be minimised by the screening provided by the existing buildings within the works.

104. A landscape strategy has been developed which includes planting native trees and

shrubs to enhance the existing screen planting. To provide greater habitat within the landscaped area to the east of the works, it is proposed to plant additional groups of native trees and shrubs to further define the ground modelling and provide greater nesting diversity for birds and invertebrates.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

105. The County Archaeologist has commented that the development at Weatherlees would

impact on the shoreline of the former Wantsum Channel where more deeply buried

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.34

archaeological remains and important geoarchaeological and palaeo-environmental deposits could be anticipated. A condition could secure the agreement of a programme of appropriate assessment and mitigation measures prior to commencement of the development.


106. During construction minor impacts may be experienced in terms of noise, dust,

vibration and views on the footpaths to the north and south of the site. However the footpaths will not need to be closed or diverted. The County Council Public Rights of Way officer wished to see a new footpath at the Weatherlees site to compensate for the greater inconvenience to the public, but accepted that it would not be possible to accommodate this within the Southern Water site. Policies contained in the approved and emerging development plans for the area require not only ‘protection’ but also ‘enhancement’ of the network. A financial package has been secured for environmental enhancements and improvements to cycleways.


107. The Environment Agency confirm that the site lies within an indicative tidal floodplain

and note that it is proposed to raise important equipment to 3 metres above Ordnance Datum Newlyn. The Agency notes that this is still some height below even the ‘200 year’ level. It is proposed that in the event of an emergency situation, i.e. works failure or pipe burst, alarm systems would shut down the transfer pumps at Margate Headworks and divert flows to storm storage, to prevent an overloading of the works and to minimise the extent of any spills. Such measures anticipate the pollution issues of what is a 1 in 200-year event.

108. The Agency would further wish to see a condition controlling the storage of oils, fuels

or chemicals to prevent pollution of the water environment from run-off. All surface water collections would be returned for treatment in the works.

CONCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

109. The preceding chapters identify the key environmental impacts for each of the areas of

development. It is acknowledged that there would be a number of environmental impacts although these are largely temporary as a result of construction activities. Given the need for the scheme and the positive benefits it would offer I am satisfied that with appropriate mitigation and management measures these impacts could be reduced to an acceptable level.

110. Having considered the environmental impacts it is now appropriate to consider some of

the other issues that are relevant to these proposals.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.35

Westwood Redevelopment Proposals

111. Representations have been received in relation to the potential residential

redevelopment of the area of land south of Nash Lane and opposite the Westwood Town Centre development. The proposed pipeline would run along Star Lane which would be realigned in the redevelopment proposals and would impact upon a proposed development of 1,000 residential units and be adjacent to a proposed primary school. The redevelopment proposals are at an early stage and formed a submission to the Thanet Local Plan inquiry, the Inspector’s report is awaited and to date Thanet District Council have not received a planning application for the proposed developed. An alternative route for the pipeline has been put forward by the objectors but this would follow major roads thereby causing significant traffic disruption and it also talks it into SPZI, which would be unlikely to be acceptable to the Environment Agency.

112. As the redevelopment proposals are at an early stage it would be possible for their

future designs (through the location of cycleways, access routes and green spaces) to accommodate the proposed twin pipeline route. I do not consider their proposed alternative offers a better solution at this point in time and in my opinion it would not be acceptable to delay delivery of this scheme in order to await a redevelopment whose future has yet to be secured.

Water Resources 113. Objections to the return flows back to Foreness Point for disposal to sea have been

made. Suggestions, to re-use the treated effluent have been put forward by one or two parties making representations upon the planning applications, suggesting that the wastewater could fill the ever increasing gap in water resources in this part of Kent. This was an issue which was considered in the alternatives assessment. It was acknowledged that re-use would be supported by the Kent Waste Local Plan and through the Governments Waste Strategy (referred to PPG 10). Whilst the waste hierarchy does not apply directly to wastewater the general principle that benefits of productive use of treated wastewater should be considered before disposal can be appropriate and may have merit in some circumstances.

114. In the case of Margate and Broadstairs, reuse was not considered either practical or

necessary at present. Whilst in the longer term there may be a shortfall, Southern Water and the Environment Agency consider that Thanet has a surplus of water resources until at least 2020. It was concluded that there was no need now to consider re-using treated effluent from the scheme to bolster water resources. Re-use thus failed the tests set by the feasibility, practicality and deliverability criteria and was taken no further in the assessment.

115. The possibility of re-use as suggested by the CPRE and the Stour Fishery Association, however, is not precluded should the longer-term view be that it is appropriate.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.36

The River Stour as a discharge point

116. Again this possibility has been mooted by a few making representations to the planning

proposals. As acknowledged earlier in the report discharge to an inland watercourse provides much less dilution than discharge into the sea. The River Stour is the only surface watercourse in the vicinity with a flow sufficient to be potentially capable of receiving treated effluent discharge. The Stour already receives a number of treated effluent discharges from wastewater treatment works and industry throughout its length. One of these is from the existing Weatherlees WTW, which discharge into the tidal part of the river close to the works. Dilution would be further reduced if treated wastewater from Margate and Broadstairs were added to the load.

117. The River Stour and Pegwell Bay, into which it flows, are complex and sensitive environments, of significant ecological value, a fact recognised by a series of international, national and local nature conservation designations. With such low dispersion rates the Applicant submits that there would be a high risk of significant detrimental impact occurring should discharges to the Stour fail to meet treatment standards because of technical failure, emergency of similar event. The ES supporting the applications details an independent ecological survey which considers the potential impacts of discharging from this scheme into The Stour. It concludes a Stour discharge option would give rise to risks related to the greater complexity of habitats, species and their interactions. In particular there is potential for effects on:

§ little tern feeding ecology; § wetland invertebrate distribution; § aquatic vegetation; § riparian habitats – the cSAC, River Stour and Stodmarsh, particularly in relation

to bed scouring, frequency of inundation, eutrophication effects and changes to vegetation composition;

§ the chalk shore, wave cut platforms, chalk reefs, and effects of siltation/sedimentation;

§ saltmarsh, particularly changes to ecology as a result of potential changes in sediments, nutrient loading and salinity;

§ inter-tidal mudflats and internationally important waterfowl populations as a result of potential changes to estuary sediments, nutrient status and salinity;

§ standing water, which could be effected by salinity changes or would be subjected to effluent from increased flooding, and

§ faunal and algal species.

118. In summary it concluded that the greater complexity of the eco-systems gives rise to risks of significant environmental impacts with a discharge to the Stour. The potential for impacts on the inter-tidal mudflats and riparian habitats, which relate to the cSAC designations, are the most acute, given the substantial importance of the estuary to wintering waterfowl, and the importance of the river habitats.

119. The two options of inland watercourse and marine discharges were compared in the alternatives assessment. In comparison the impacts of a discharge to the sea at Foreness Point were considered to be very localised and not felt to represent a risk to the integrity of any European site or features of conservation interest. The ecology associated with the Foreness Point option is simpler and better understood and has

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.37

been a long-established discharge location. The Stour by contrast presented uncertainty as to how some of the conservation features would be affected. Lack of knowledge adds to the risk, especially in respect of the wetland invertebrates. Additional field surveys to determine the number of rare species at risk would be needed and even then the extent of the impact upon the Stour would not be certain.

120. The conclusions of this survey were considered in the context of the objectives and criteria for the alternatives assessment. It was concluded that the use of the existing Foreness Point LSO was the preferred option, and the strategic BPEO for discharge of the treated effluent from the combined Margate and Broadstairs catchments.

Environment Agency Comments upon re-use and discharge to the Stour

121. The Environment Agency was specifically asked to address the comments received by

CPRE in relation to reuse of the effluent and discharge to the Stour. Their full response is appended to this report. Essentially they confirm that these proposals would meet the current European legislation. They point out that Margate and Broadstairs is one of only two schemes in the whole of the UK which will fail to meet statutory deadlines laid down in the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. To delay matters further to investigate an alternative discharge location at this point in time would result in very serious consequences for the delivery of upgraded treatment for Margate and Broadstairs.

122. There is also serious doubt that adequate levels of treatment could be achieved to

facilitate discharge to the Stour even if the background data could be collected in time. The EA questions whether an adequate level of dilution would be available in the Stour at periods of low flow.

123. The EA state that this proposal is distinctly different from that in Langford, Essex, not

least of which is that it relies upon a 26000Ml capacity reservoir, whereas no such reservoir exists in East Kent at present.

124. Effluent recycling schemes are unlikely to be part of Southern Water’s resource

management plans for the foreseeable future with sufficient alternative sources available to meet demand within the present planning horizon. The EA does however acknowledge that Weatherlees would produce some 40Ml/d of effluent which will inevitably be considered as apart of any longer term resource assessment. As additional need develops over the longer term and treatment technology improves the EA recognises that alternative uses would need to be fully assessed.

Water resource issues and the Alternatives and Best Practical Environmental Option

(BPEO) Assessment

125. As stated above, further to the EA comments in relation to the water resources issues

and alternative discharge locations, the alternatives and BPEO assessment specifically considered this issue. The proposals put forward were considered to be the solution that best conformed to the policies of the statutory development plan and government planning and environmental policy guidance. The Applicant submits that the strategic

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.38

analysis using the BPEO techniques confirm it as the only option that meets the two primary objectives of compliance with legislation and the statutory development plan, and also the best option when measured against the other decision criteria.

126. The chosen scheme also offers flexibility should there be a long-term requirement for

treated wastewater to be used to augment water resources. Should this need ever arise, and the necessary works prove feasible in the future, the scheme would not preclude the redirecting of treated effluent from Weatherlees. In that event the only component of the scheme that may not be required would be the return pipeline to Margate. I am satisfied that the assessment of the alternatives has been carried out thoroughly and that the BPEO assessment is robust.

Consideration of the Appropriate Assessment

127. The purpose of the appropriate assessment is to assess the implications of the proposals in respect of the site’s ‘conservation objectives’. The conclusions of the assessment should enable the competent authority to ascertain whether the proposal would adversely affect the integrity of the site. I have carried out an Appropriate Assessment on behalf of the County Council and have concluded that whilst the proposed development (project) could adversely affect the integrity of the site the imposition of conditions/restrictions would avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the site. The full appropriate assessment is appended to this report.

128. The Habitats Regulations require an assessment specifically of the nature conservation

sites with European designations upon them and should not be influenced by wider planning or other considerations. However it does result in a thorough examination of the likely impacts of a scheme upon such nature conservation areas. It requires a disciplined approach to considering the nature conservation impacts which is carried through the rest of the EIA (English Nature confirmed that the information contained in the ES was adequate for the purposes of the Habitat Regulations). For this reason I am confident that all ecological impacts have been addressed adequately.

CONCLUSION

129. A solution is required to provide wastewater treatment for the Margate and Broadstairs

catchment, the primary driver being the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Primary, secondary and UV disinfection treatment has to be provided. To do nothing is not an option and would continue to delay the regeneration of not only the tourism industry of the area but also the whole of Thanet’s economic prospects. The scheme has been chosen through a comprehensive strategic assessment of alternative discharge options, treatment sites, pipeline routes and treatment processes.

130. The proposal is considered to be in general accordance with the policies and proposals

of the current development plan. The impacts of the scheme have been carefully considered and the mitigation measures proposed minimise those impacts to an acceptable level. As required by the Habitat Regulations an appropriate assessment of the proposal has been carried out to the satisfaction of English Nature, which concludes that with appropriate mitigation and conditions the integrity of the internationally

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.39

designated site would not be affected and permission could be granted. The applicants have submitted a Code of Construction Practice that establishes and sets out the construction methodology and relevant legislation, guidelines and best practice. In other words it sets out the actions that would be taken to protect and where practical enhance the environment throughout the construction period and includes matter such as timings to avoid disturbance to wildlife. Such a document is extremely useful and its contents can be conditioned in a succinct and clear manner without the need for numerous construction activity conditions.

131. I am satisfied that the need for the scheme, with the appropriate mitigation to address

areas of impact overrides any objections to the proposals. The mitigation measures put forward result in a number of community benefits that could be achieved, a summary of these is appended to this report. There are no other material considerations.

132. As the scheme is submitted as four separate applications it is necessary to produce a

recommendation and consequently a decision for each application. As the applications are accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment it would also be necessary to advertise the decision of the County Council.

Recommendation

Aplication 1 TH/04/0892 – Works to the Broadstairs Headworks and

construction of a wastewater transfer pipeline to connect the Broadstairs

and Margate Headworks.

I RECOMMEND that PLANNING PERMISSION be GRANTED subject to conditions covering amongst other matters:- standard time condition, compliance with the code of construction practice, drainage, submission of a letter of intention to commence development, details of planting, hours of operation, details of lighting, compliance with odour control measures

Application 2 TH/04/0893 – Works to the Margate Headworks.

I RECOMMEND that PLANNING PERMISSION be GRANTED subject to conditions covering amongst other matters:- standard time condition, compliance with the code of construction practice, drainage, submission of a letter of intention to commence development, details of planting, hours of operation, details of lighting, compliance with odour control measures

Application 3 TH/04/0894 – Construction of twin wastewater and treated effluent

pipeline between the Margate Headworks and Weatherlees Wastewater

Treatment Works

I RECOMMEND that PLANNING PERMISSION be GRANTED subject to conditions covering amongst other matters:- standard time condition, compliance with the code of construction practice, submission of a letter of intention to commence development, hours of operation, details of lighting, compliance with odour control measures

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.40

Application 4 TH/04/895 – Construction of a new wastewater treatment works at

Weatherlees

I RECOMMEND that PLANNING PERMISSION be GRANTED subject to conditions covering amongst other matters:- standard time condition, compliance with the code of construction practice, drainage, submission of a letter of intention to commence development ,details of planting, hours of operation, details of lighting, compliance with odour control measures.

Case Officer: Andrea Hopkins 01622 221056

Background Documents - see section heading

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.41

Appendix 1

APPLICATIONS TH/04/892,893,894 AND 895 – MARGATE AND BROADSTAIRS

URBAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT SCHEME NOTES of a site tour on Monday, 15 November 2004. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr J F London (Chairman), Mr F Wood-Brignall (Vice-Chairman), Mr R W Ford, Mr J D Kirby and Mr A R Poole. OFFICERS: Mr R Gregory (Planning) and Mr A Tait (Legal and Secretariat). THANET DISTRICT COUNCIL: Mrs W L Gore, Mr R A Latchford and Mrs S A Tomlinson. (Mr Ford and Mr Kirby also Members) THE APPLICANT: Mr M Dearsley (Southern Water Ltd) accompanied by Ms A Dugdale and Mr M Hendry (Adams Hendry Consulting). (1) The Chairman welcomed everyone to the site tour. He explained that its

purpose was to enable Members to familiarise themselves with the proposed pipeline route and to come to a better understanding of the planning issues involved.

(2) Mr Gregory introduced the scheme by saying that it was important to

understand the nature of the functions and the connections between the headworks at Margate and Broadstairs. It was also essential to realise that this was a European large scale strategic development and, as such, had to be assessed within that context. It needed to comply with European Directives.

(3) Mr Gregory continued by explaining that the purpose of the scheme was to

provide Margate and Broadstairs with modern wastewater treatment facilities that complied with recent and future legislation. Currently, the level of treatment did not conform to the relevant European Directive.

(4) Mr Gregory said that the applicants’ strategy was to attempt to tie together

existing and new capacity so that waste water would be collected from Broadstairs, piped underground to join sewage collected by the Margate sewage network. It would then be treated and discharged into the sea at Foreness Point.

(5) Mr Hendry said that the scheme had taken a long time to be developed. The

major headworks at Weatherlees would be replaced by a new works adjacent to it. The sewage would be treated there before being transferred to the Margate Headworks for discharge at Foreness Point.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.42

(6) Members travelled to the Foreness Point long sea outfall. (7) Mr Hendry then said that the principle behind the accompanying

Environmental Statement was that the sewage would be treated and released safely into the sea via a long sea outfall, tunnelled under the chalk reef at Foreness Point, which would consequently be preserved. This would include storm water overflow. Currently the short sea outfall discharged 600m from the coastline. He pointed out that the coastline was receding and that the area around the headworks was protected.

(8) Mr Hendry went on to explain that the improvement to the existing preliminary

treatment plant at Margate would not result in a great change to the building itself. The footpath arrangements near to it had been worked out in detail. The benefit of the scheme was that there would be a greatly reduced local impact.

(9) Mr Dearsley said that if permission were granted, the start date for

construction would be 1 April 2005. Constructors would be on site for 2 years. (10) Mrs Gore asked whether the storm outfall was going out far enough into the

sea. Mr Hendry replied this would not be determined by the County Planning Authority. However, the Environment Agency had expressed satisfaction following examination of models. He asked Members to bear in mind that the discharged fluids would be treated to a greater degree than before, leading to a considerable improvement in water quality.

(11) Mr Gregory clarified the area of responsibility for the Planning Applications

Committee. Its authority went to the edge of the beach. (12) Mr Dearsley said that the application needed to be examined in the light of

how things stood at the moment. For example, new legislation relating to shellfish meant that the old permission would no longer be valid.

(13) The applicants showed Members where the tunnelling operations would start.

The pipeline would cross the golf course before being covered over. There would be no point at which pipes carrying effluent would be above the surface.

(14) Mr Gregory said that the County Archaeologist had advise that the proposed

development would represent an opportunity to examine a cross section of Thanet. Potentially, this could be of great historical benefit.

(15) Members then travelled along the route of the proposed pipeline, which would

follow Princess Margaret Avenue/ Queen Elizabeth Avenue (B2051), pass along the western border of the Northdown Park Conservation Area, along Millmead Avenue, cut under the houses and fields to the open cut section at the end of Broadley Road. Tunnelling would resume through Westwood. The

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.43

pipeline would then resurface, travel roughly parallel to Haine Road, tunnel again between Bush Farm, under the Kent International Airport to the south side of the A253 and then run up to and parallel to the railway line, which it would cross near to St Augustine’s Crossing. From there it would make its way in a broadly southwesterly direction across fields to Weatherlees.

(16) Members were then shown the currently operating site at Weatherlees and

the site of the proposed future headworks. (17) Mr Gregory said that the issues for Members to consider were whether this

represented over development, the visual context of the site and the potential odour and sludge treatment impact.

(18) Mrs Dugdale said that the site was currently served by light traffic. There

would only be a marginal traffic impact resulting from the development. (19) The Chairman thanked everyone for attending. The notes of this visit would be

appended to the Committee report in due course.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.44

Appendix 2

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONS

Application 1 TH/04/0892 – Works to the Broadstairs Headworks and

construction of a wastewater transfer pipeline to connect the Broadstairs

and Margate Headworks.

Site and Proposal

Broadstairs Headworks 1. It is proposed to refurbish the existing plant, including the screens, and install new

pumps within the existing underground structure. Pumping plant will be installed so that wastewater flows of up to 264l/s can be transferred via a new underground pipeline to the Margate Headworks.

2. The existing twin short sea storm outfalls would also be repaired. The end section of the

762mm-diameter outfall appears to have suffered impact damage and much of the existing concrete support and protection has been badly eroded by wave action. The works required are therefore to replace the missing end section of the southerly storm outfall with ductile iron pipes, replace missing concrete supports, protect the storm outfalls from erosion and remove exposed steel sheet piling. A 4-metre diameter chamber to connect the twin storm outfalls will be constructed under the foreshore, 15 m from the cliff base. The connection chamber will enable both storm outfalls to be used.

3. During construction of the chamber, access to the foreshore will be gained from the

existing slipway at Joss Bay across a fenced route on the sand. The line of the outfalls from the manhole structure across the foreshore is clearly defined. It is proposed that a 6m wide corridor on the north side of the outfalls is used by rubber tyred plant to access the works. The works are proposed to be undertaken during the summer (April- Sept) and at a low tide. Remedial work to the offshore section of the outfalls would be carried out on a neap tide, using a suitable barge, operating from Ramsgate Harbour.

4. Temporary construction compounds at the Broadstairs Headworks and Joss Bay car

park will be required during the construction. During construction, access to the Broadstairs Headworks will be gained across agricultural land from a temporary construction compound in Joss Bay car park, which will be accessed from North Foreland Hill.

Broadstairs to Margate Wastewater Transfer Pipeline 5. The transfer pipeline to Margate Headworks would be constructed using open cut and

directional drill methods. The 2.8km pipeline, varying in internal diameter from 400 to 600 mm will transfer flows of up to 264l/s.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.45

6. From the Broadstairs Headworks the pipeline route crosses agricultural land. This section of the pipeline would be constructed using open cut methods and would require a 20m wide temporary working strip.

7. The section across the North Foreland Golf Course and Kingsgate Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) would be constructed using directional drill methods. This involves using a drilling rig, which first drills a pilot tunnel and then pulls sections of pipe into position in the tunnel. The sections of pipeline must be strung together before being pulled into position. The fields between Elmwood Avenue and the B2052 will therefore be used for pipe stringing.

8. Air Valves and Washout Chambers – Air valves are required at intervals along the transfer pipeline to release air that accumulates in the pipeline at peaks and changes in gradient. They also alleviate surge pressures in the main. Chambers containing air relief valves will be either mounted directly on the mains or beside the mains with a small diameter pipeline connecting to the main.

9. The chambers will be constructed of reinforced concrete with 300 mm thick walls, roof and base slabs. Each chamber will be entirely below ground level and will be accessible via ductile iron covers, which will be the only visible aspect of the structure when it is in normal use. The chambers are sized to allow for the installation of odour control equipment. Air released from the main would be vented from a cover in the roof slab.

10. The dimensions of the chambers would typically be 2.4m by 1.6m and the depth would be approximately 2m but would vary between chambers to suit pipeline requirements.

11. The washout chambers would contain tees on the mains which would be fitted with valves and hose connectors. The washout chambers enable the main to be drained down for maintenance or repairs. A road tanker would remove the water. This maintenance procedure would be very infrequent. The chamber would be entirely below ground level other than the iron cover. There would be two washout chamber for the transfer pipeline.

12. Construction Hours of Working – Normal hours of working (with the exception of

directional drilling and marine works) would be 0700-1800 Mon-Fri and 0700-1400 hours on Saturday. For the directional drill section of the Broadstairs to Margate pipeline the normal working hours would be 0700 to 2300 hours on weekdays and 0700 to 1400 hours on Saturday only. For the marine works, tidal working would be necessary during daylight hours on the foreshore at Broadstairs. Works on the foreshore would largely be undertaken outside of the winter period (October-April), to avoid disturbance to over-wintering birds. English Nature have advised the applicant that where noise and vibration disturbance would not have an affect on the bird feeding areas, works can continue in winter, stopping at appropriate times before and after the high tide where it occurs during daylight hours.

Application 2 TH/04/0893 – Works to the Margate Headworks.

Site and Proposal

13. It would be necessary to extend the above and below-ground structures at the Margate

Headworks in order to provide improved preliminary treatment and stormwater storage.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.46

Screening and degritting plant would be upgraded to provide improved preliminary treatment of the combined Margate and Broadstairs flows up to 809 l/s, prior to transfer via pipeline to the new treatment works at Weatherlees.

14. In total 11,800m

3 of storm water storage would be provided at the Margate Headworks.

This would include the 5,600m3 of existing storage within the tank sewers, 2,400m3

storage would be created by raising the storm weirs at the inlet works and an additional 3,800m3 storage in a new storm tank, which would be constructed underground within the existing works. The flow diagram on page X explains how the system would operate in storm conditions.

15. A new 1800 mm diameter storm outfall would be tunnelled under the chalk reef at

Foreness Point. The existing LSO would continue to be used for discharge of treated wastewater.

16. The structures leased to HM coastguard and the RSPB would be demolished to make

way for a northwards extension of the Headworks measuring 22m x 17m. The overall height and width of the Headworks structure would otherwise remain as at present. The coastguard would be provided with alternative accommodation within the extended Headworks building, and a new bird hide is included in the works compound. The proposed design of the above ground structure reflects the style of the existing structure.

17. The existing headworks compound above ground would be extended westwards to allow

access for HGV access to remove screenings and grit. The existing HGV access along the southern boundary would be maintained.

18. During construction, pumps may be required for dewatering excavated areas. A

temporary site compound would be required to the south-east and west of the Headworks. Traffic associated with the construction and operation of the Headworks would use the existing access via Princes Walk and Friend’s Gap on to the B2051, Palm Bay Avenue.

19. Construction Hours of Working – Normal hours of working would be weekdays 0700 to

1800 and 0700 to 1400 hours on Saturday. 20. For the marine works, tidal working would be necessary during daylight hours at the

seaward end of the new storm outfall at Foreness Point. Works on the foreshore would largely be undertaken outside the winter period (October – April), to avoid disturbance to over-wintering birds. English Nature have advised that where noise and vibration disturbance would not have an affect on the bird feeding, works can continue in winter, stopping at appropriate times after the high tide where it occurs during daylight hours.

21. Lighting – It would be necessary for Southern Water to have provision to light the site

during the hours of darkness in the event of equipment breakdown. Lighting would also be required for access and for security purposes. When lighting is not needed the site would be left unlit. Generally lighting would be provided which:

• Avoids light pollution

• Reduces energy consumption

• Minimises the impact on local residents

• Can be controlled

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.47

22. Odour Control – The proposed upgraded and extended facilities at Margate Headworks

include additional odour control measures to minimise any air quality impacts. Current arrangements allow for carbon filtration of the ventilation air prior to discharge to the atmosphere via low-level building vents. In future, it is intended that ventilation air from existing and additional plant rooms would be passed through an odour abatement unit and discharged to atmosphere via a single stack above the building.

23. The new plant areas (storm storage, degritting and screening equipment and storage

areas, chemical dosing and pumping equipment) would be contained and subject to a negative pressure ventilation system. The system would draw clean air in through increasingly odorous areas, treat and then discharge the air to the atmosphere via a stack, 3 m above the building roof.

24. Screenings and grit would be removed from the Headworks on a regular basis,

approximately twice a week. In order to prevent the release of odour during the opening of the building doors to admit vehicles, a double-door “airlock” system would be incorporated into the building design.

25. Traffic and Transport – Access to the Margate Headworks at Foreness Pint is from the

B2051 (Palm Bay and Princess Margaret Avenue), via Friend’s Gap to Princes Walk, a coastal promenade (and Regional Routre15 of the National Cycle Network). Princes Walk has a variable width ranging from 5.5 metres to 12.3 metres and Friend’s Gap is approximately 4.6 metres wide. Neither is lit or subject to an enforceable speed limit and neither is adopted by the Highway authority. The Applicant have right of access via Princes Walk and a lockable barrier on Friends gap prohibits vehicular traffic along Princes Walk other than for the purposes of accessing the Headworks, and the coastguard station and bird hide which are within the existing Headworks compound. The only public right of way to the Headworks if from The Ridings via bridleway TN1A, adjacent to the miniature golf course.

26. For about 3km to the west, the B2051 runs parallel with the coast along the northern

fringe of Margate and connects with the A28 and A254at the seafront in the town centre. About 1.5km south of Foreness Point, the B2051 links with the B2052. Currently the Margate Headworks generate 2 HGV movements per week. Once the scheme is operational there would be an increase of 3 HGV movements per week required to service the Margate Headworks, with no increase in the number of light vehicles.

27. During the construction phase a fenced corridor (a route for traffic separated by a

physical barrier) would be provided along the seaward side of Princes Walk and Friend’s Gap to separate pedestrians from construction vehicles entering and exiting the construction site. Personnel with hand held radios would be stationed at appropriate locations to ensure that vehicles would be held back by the traffic controller on Princes Walk when others are approaching the site along Friend’s Gap to ensure that HGV’s waiting to enter the site do not queue on Palm Bay Avenue. Construction traffic accessing Margate Headworks would pass Palm Bay School. To prevent any possible conflict between traffic and pedestrians, it is proposed to build out the kerb on the north of the Palm Bay Avenue, and provide dropped kerbs and tactile paving on both sides of the road. This would decrease the carriageway width for pedestrians to cross, and increase the prominence of any pedestrian waiting to cross the road.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.48

Application 3 TH/04/0894 – Construction of twin wastewater and treated

effluent pipeline between the Margate Headworks and Weatherlees

Wastewater Treatment Works

Site and Proposal

28. It is proposed to construct a 11 km long, twin 800 mm diameter wastewater and treated wastewater underground pipe connecting the Margate Headworks to the proposed new treatment works at Weatherlees. One pipeline would transfer the combined preliminary treated flows, of up to 809l/s, from the Margate and Broadstairs catchments, to the Weatherlees WWTW. Following primary, secondary and UV disinfection treatment at the Weatherlees WTW, the treated wastewater will be transferred via the second pipeline back to Margate Headworks, for discharge from the existing 1.9 km long sea outfall at Foreness Point. A total of 16 compounds would be required temporarily during construction of the scheme.

29. The twin pipeline would be constructed using three different techniques: open cut,

tunnelling and pipejacking (see glossary). The open cut sections of pipelines would follow roads and tracks as far as Westwood, from where they would cross predominantly agricultural land before reaching Ebbsfleet Lane and Weatherlees. Pipejacking would be used to cross the two railway lines.

30. Underground washout chambers and air valves would be required along the route of the

pipeline for maintenance purposes (see Application 1 for description of these chambers). 31. Construction Programme and Working Hours – Normal working hours for the open cut

sections of pipe laying would be 0700 to 1800 hours, Monday to Friday, 0700 to 1400 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or bank holidays, except in an emergency or with special permission, to minimise disruption. Shaft sinking associated with tunnelling would take place within the standard working hours above. However, it may be necessary to undertake maintenance work between 1800 to 2300 hours on weekdays only.

32. It is proposed that two shifts would be used for the construction of tunnels and

pipejacking. Typical hours of working would be 0700 to 2300 hours on weekdays and 0700 to 1400hours on Saturdays. It may also be necessary to undertake maintenance between 2300 to 0700 hours. Network Rail may insist on night working for the pipejacking. Spoil removal from the tunnelling operations would be restricted to between 0700 and 1900 hours.

33. Traffic and Transport – The only traffic generated by the operation of the twin pipeline

would be to carry out routine maintenance of the pipelines.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.49

Application 4 TH/04/895 – Construction of a new wastewater treatment

works at Weatherlees

Site and Proposal

34. It is proposed to construct a new wastewater treatment works (WTW) adjacent to the existing Weatherlees WTW, almost entirely within the existing operational site boundary. It would be necessary to extend the south east boundary by approximately 21 m to the edge of Southern Water’s ownership. The site is owned entirely by Southern Water. The proposed new works would be independent of the existing works and provide the following treatment.

• Grit and grease removal.

• Primary treatment by lamella separators,

• Secondary treatment by conventional activated sludge process

• Ultra-violet disinfection – a method of treatment involving exposure to intense ultraviolet light, and

• Sludge treatment – screening, thickening and dewatering. This facility would treat the combined sludge arising from the new WTW and the existing Weatherlees WTW.

Construction Programme – It is estimated that the new WTW activity would be completed in 27 months. The programme would comprise the following main elements:

• Set up site 2 months

• Earthworks/piling/bulk excavation 3 months

• Civil construction work 18 months

• Mechanical and electrical installation 9 months

• Testing/commissioning 6 months Hours of construction working - Normal Hours of working would be weekdays 0700 to 1800 and 0700 to 1400 hours on Saturdays. There would be no working on Sundays or public holidays.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.50

Appendix 3

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

MARGATE & BROADSTAIRS URBAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT SCHEME

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

This is a record of the appropriate assessment, required by Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations 1994, undertaken by Kent County Council in respect of the elements of the above project for which it is the Competent Authority, in accordance with the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). Having considered that the plan or project would be likely to have a significant effect on the Thanet Coast cSAC, Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar Site and that the plan or project was not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, an appropriate assessment has been undertaken of the implications of the proposal in view of the site’s conservation objectives. English Nature was consulted under Regulation 48(3) on 4 October 2004 and their representations, to which Kent County

Council has had regard, are attached at Annex 1. The conclusions of this Appropriate Assessment are in accordance with the

advice and recommendations of English Nature.

This appropriate assessment should be read in conjunction with the appropriate assessments undertaken by the Environment

Agency and the Marine Consents & Environment Unit, for those aspects of the proposed project for which they are the

Competent Authority.

Title: The Margate & Broadstairs Urban Wastewater Treatment Scheme.

Location: Thanet, Kent.

Designations: Thanet Coast candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC), Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar Site,

Sandwich Bay cSAC (Note: the features for which this site is designated will not be affected by the proposed works so there is no need for an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken in respect of this site).

Description of the Project: The purpose of the proposed scheme is to provide Margate and Broadstairs with modern wastewater treatment facilities and to ensure compliance with the following European Directives:

• The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as implemented through the Urban Wastewater Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994;

• The Bathing Water Quality Directive (76/106/EC), as implemented through the Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991;

• The Quality Required of Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923/EEC), as implemented through the Surface Water (Shellfish) (Classification) Regulations 1997 and the Surface Water (Shellfish) Directions 1997; and

• The Shellfish Hygiene Directive (91/492/EC) implementation of which is consolidated in the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations 1998.

The proposed scheme includes the following works: Broadstairs Headworks: Improvement works include refurbishment of the existing plant and installation of

new pumps and repairs to the existing short sea outfalls.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.51

Broadstairs to Margate Construction of an underground pipeline to transfer wastewater from the Wastewater Pipeline: Broadstairs Headworks to the Margate Headworks. Margate Headworks: Improvement works include upgrading of the preliminary treatment plant

(screening and degritting), provision of additional storm water storage, installation of new transfer pumps, construction of a new short sea outfall tunneled under the chalk reef, and extension of the existing above ground structures.

Margate to Weatherlees Construction of an underground twin pipeline to transfer the combined Twin Pipeline: Margate and Broadstairs preliminary treated wastewater from the Margate

Headworks to a new treatment works at Weatherlees and in the reverse direction, transfer the treated effluent for discharge via the existing Foreness Point LSO.

Weatherlees Wastewater Construction of a new Works on land owned by Southern Water at Treatment Works: Weatherlees to serve the Broadstairs and Margate catchment. The new works

will provide primary, secondary and UV disinfection treatment.

The scheme is more fully described in the Environmental Statement that accompanies the four planning applications submitted to Kent County Council. The Margate and Broadstairs Urban Wastewater Treatment Scheme is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the SPA, the cSACs and the Ramsar site. However the scheme has been carefully designed to minimise its effects on the features for which the European sites have been designated. The success of this strategy has been carefully assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment procedure. The Environmental Statement concludes that the scheme accords with government guidance, strategic and local planning policies.

Brief Description of the European Sites and Ramsar Site to which this appropriate assessment

applies:

Thanet Coast cSAC The Thanet Coast qualifies as a candidate SAC under the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora Directive (92/43/EEC), because it contains habitat types and/or species that are rare or threatened within a European context. The citation states that the area supports the following features of European interest: reefs and submerged or partly submerged sea caves. The cSAC starts at the cliff top and includes a marine component which extends out to sea up to approximately 2 km.

Thanet Coast & Sandwich The Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Bay SPA Conservation of Wild Birds (Directive 79/409/EEC) by supporting a nationally

important breeding population of little tern and a nationally important wintering population of golden plover.

The SPA also qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting an internationally important wintering population of turnstone. The SPA extends from cliff top to mean low water and also includes some inland areas near Sandwich.

Thanet Coast & Sandwich The site qualifies under Criterion 2a of the Ramsar Convention on Bay Ramsar Site Wetlands of International Importance, by supporting a very large number of rare

species of wetland invertebrates; and under Criterion 3c by regularly supporting an internationally important wintering population of turnstone. The citation also notes the nationally important breeding population of little tern and the nationally important wintering population of ringed plover, grey plover and sanderling. In addition large numbers of migratory passerine birds pass through the site during the spring and autumn migration periods.

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.52

In-combination Effects Other projects or plans that together with the proposed scheme could affect the European sites and Ramsar Site include: Turner Contemporary, expansion of London Manston Airport, Margate Master Plan and other discharges into coastal waters. An incombination assessment of the proposed scheme in respect of the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar Site, with the construction of the Turner Contemporary, has been undertaken.

Item C1

Margate and Broadstairs Urban Wastewater Treatment Scheme – TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and

TH/04/895

C1.53

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT TABLE

The table describes the features of the European sites, and any likely direct, indirect or secondary impacts of the aspects of the project for which Kent County Council is a Competent Authorityt

(either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) on the site, proposed mitigation measures and residual effects. The site’s conservation objectives have been taken into account,

including consideration of the citation for the site and information supplied by English Nature (see Annex I) and the likely effects of the proposals on the international nature conservation

interests for which the site was designated.

FEATURE SUB-FEATURE PROPOSED

ACTIVITY

POSSIBLE EFFECT PROPOSED MITIGATION RESIDUAL

EFFECTS

INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED

Thanet Coast candidate Special Area of Conservation

cSAC feature: Chalk Reefs

for which this is considered

to be one of the best areas

in the UK

Reefs are areas of subtidal

rock which may extend

onto the shore, or some

types of biological reefs.

These form the habitat for

a variety of biological

communities such as those

characterised by encrusting

animals and attached

seaweeds

Intertidal

chalk algal

and lichen

communities

Intertidal red

algal turf

communities

Kelp

dominated

communities

on animal

bored rock

Subtidal

animal bored

chalk

communities

Construction of

a new storm

outfall and

removal of the

seaward ends of

two redundant

storm outfalls at

Foreness Point.

Refurbishment

of two short

storm outfalls at

Broadstairs.

Direct loss of chalk reef

habitat at both sites.

Physical damage from use

of machinery on and

adjacent to reef at both

sites.

Physical damage to reef

from break-up of

redundant outfall pipes at

Foreness Point.

Smothering of adjacent

communities by arisings

from tunnelling at

Foreness Point.

Changes in turbidity

during construction at

Foreness Point.

Species changes in

adjacent communities as a

result of smothering and

turbidity changes at

Foreness and physical

damage at both sites.

Tunnelling the new outfall

pipe under the chalk reef at

Foreness Point.

Removal of only the 100m

seaward ends of the redundant

outfalls at Foreness Point.

Monitoring of the condition

of the remaining redundant

outfalls.

Monitoring of colonisation

and stability of trenches

created by removal of outfall

sections at Foreness Point.

Monitoring of re-colonisation

of damaged reef from vehicle

use at Broadstairs.

Restricted working area and

use of suitable machinery and

techniques to minimise reef

damage at Broadstairs.

Some physical

damage where the

seaward end of

the new outfall

emerges from the

reef at Foreness

Point.

Some smothering

and increase in

turbidity during

construction at

Foreness Point.

Some damage to

the fabric of reef

from movement of

machinery at

Broadstairs and

possibly at the

end of the new

tunnelled outfall

at Foreness Point.

Plan illustrating the affected areas at

both sites.

Plan illustrating the extent and

gradation of any potential damage to

the habitat at both sites.

Details on the construction

methodology, type of plant to be

used, working areas, construction

programme at both sites. This to

include measures to limit physical

damage and liberation of fines from

tunnelling work at Foreness; and

measures to limit damage from

vehicles on reef at Broadstairs. This

information will only be available in

detail when a contractor is appointed.

Analysis of the likely extent and

significance of sediment and

turbidity.

Assessment of likely species changes

in the adjacent communities and

significance of this.

Item C1


TH/04/895

C1.54


ACTIVITY


EFFECTS


cSAC feature: Sea Caves

for which this is considered

to be one of the best areas

in the UK

Submerged or partially

submerged sea caves: these

are tunnels or caverns on

the shore or below the sea

surface in which vertical or

overhanging rock surfaces

form the main habitat.

Intertidal

chalk cliff

algal and

lichen

communities

N/A None likely N/A N/A N/A

Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area

SPA feature: Internationally important populations of the regularly occurring migratory species – Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Chalk shores

as turnstone

habitat

Construction of

a new storm

outfall and

removal of two

redundant storm

outfalls at

Foreness Point.

Refurbishment

of two short sea

outfalls at

Broadstairs.

Construction

works at the

Margate

Headworks

adjacent to the

cliffs at

Foreness

In combination effect

with the construction of

the Turner Contemporary

of non-physical

disturbance – noise and

visual presence to birds,

affecting their feeding

area at both sites and their

roosting area at Foreness.

In combination effect

with the construction of

the Turner Contemporary

of disturbance to roosting

birds and, to a lesser

extent, feeding birds.

Tunnelling will minimise the

disturbance. In addition the

work will be undertaken

between April and September,

outside wintering bird season.

Should work extend beyond

this period working hours will

be restricted to avoid

disturbance at high tide

roosts, detail of which to be

agreed with English Nature.

Undertake work between

April and September, outside

wintering bird season. Should

work extend beyond this

period working hours will be

restricted to avoid

Most birds will

not be affected.

Few birds stay

over summer and

may be affected.

Most birds will

not be affected.

Few birds stay

over summer and

may be affected.

Bird counts for the area (information

on feeding and roosting areas already

known).

Construction programme and

methodology, including information

of the types of activities that might

disturb birds, such as noise levels,

and dust levels. This information will

only be available in detail when a

contractor is appointed.

Bird counts for the area (information

on feeding and roosting areas already

known). Construction programme and

methodology. To include methods for

demolition, indicating levels of noise

generated and type of noise

Item C1


TH/04/895

C1.55


ACTIVITY


EFFECTS


Point disturbance at high tide

roosts, detail of which to be

agreed with English Nature

e.g. intermittent or constant sound

This information will only be

available in detail when a contractor

is appointed.

SPA feature:

Internationally important

populations of regularly

occurring bird species

listed in Annex 1 of the

Birds Directive.

Breeding little tern (Sterna

albifrons)

Wintering golden plover

(Pluvialis apricaria)

Appropriate assessment unnecessary as notification features will not be affected.

Sandwich Bay cSAC: Appropriate assessment unnecessary as notification features will not be affected.

Thanet Coast and

Sandwich Bay Ramsar

Site:

Criterion 2a – supporting a

very large number of rare

species of wetland

invertebrates

Criterion 3c – regularly

supporting an

internationally important

wintering population of

turnstone

Appropriate assessment unnecessary as notification features will not be affected

As for Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA

Item C1


TH/04/895

C1.56

The conservation objectives of the designated sites have been taken into account, including consideration of the citation for the site and information supplied by English Nature (see Annex 1).

The likely effects of the proposal on the international nature conservation interests for which the site was designated are summarised in the above table.

The assessment has concluded that the plan or project as proposed would adversely affect the integrity of the site, however the following conditions and/or restrictions would avoid adverse

effects on the integrity of the site.

a) Details of the construction methodology, type of plant to be used, working areas, construction programme at both sites to be submitted to and agreed by Kent

County Council and English Nature prior to works commencing. This to include measures to limit physical damage (directional drilling at least 6 metres below the seabed) and liberation of fines from tunnelling work at Foreness, avoidance of release of wet concrete into marine waters, provision of suitable bunding and storage facilities to prevent the release into marine waters of any fuel oils, lubricating fluids etc; and measures to limit damage from vehicles on the reef at Broadstairs.

b) Details of the removal from the site all excavated chalk and broken concrete and cast iron from the redundant outfall sections.

c) A fully qualified ecological clerk of works shall be present on site to oversee all construction activities at Margate Headworks and shall liaise with the site

engineer, contractor and English Nature (and other bodies as appropriate).

d) The condition of the remaining redundant outfalls at Margate shall be monitored every 12 months for a period of 5 years at which time the monitoring schedule shall be reviewed and a new monitoring programme put in place.

e) Monitoring of the colonisation and stability of trenches created by the removal of outfall sections at Foreness Point shall take place every 12 months for a period

of 5 years, at which time the monitoring schedule shall be reviewed and a new monitoring programme put in place.

f) Construction activities at Margate Headworks site should be undertaken outside of the wintering bird season, i.e., no work between 1

st October and 15

th April.

Should it not be possible to avoid this period then timing restrictions would need to be imposed as follows:

• 1 October to 31 January: 2 hour stoppage, starting 1 1/2 hours before and ending

1/2 hour after each high tide.

• 1 February to 14 April: 3 hour stoppage, starting 2 hours before and ending 1 hour after each high tide.

g) Proposals for grassland habitat stripping, storage and reinstatement to be agreed with Kent County Council and English Nature prior to any works commencing.

Signed Date Annnex 1: Representation from English Nature (letters of 3

rd September & 9

th November 2004)

Item C1


TH/04/892, TH/04/893, TH/04/894 and TH/04/895

C1.57

Appendix 4