Venue: The John Meikle Room - The Deane House. View directions
Contact: Tracey Meadows Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Webcast: View the webcast
To receive any apologies for absence
Councillor Cavill joined the meeting via Zoom.
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting of the Subcommittee
Councillor Habgood proposed and Councillor Coles seconded the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting.
The motion was carried.
Declarations of interest
To receive and note any declarations of disclosable pecuniary or prejudicial or personal interests or lobbying in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.
(The personal interests of Councillors and Clerks of Somerset County Council, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes.)
No further Declarations Of Interest were declared.
The purpose of the report was to update members on the creation of P credits to offset development in the River Tone sub catchment area.
During discussion of this item the following comments/queries were raised
· Did the Council have any plans to retro fit any other Council owned buildings and whether this would feed into the unitary authority in due course;
· Concerns that various proposed schemes on agricultural land with a 1-year lease agreement with farmers created a risk and not a lot of flexibility;
· Concerns with the lack of liaison between the Rivers Authority and Somerset County Council;
· Concerns that small developers were not taking up the ‘P’ credit scheme;
· Concerns with the impact on the viability of Social Housing;
· Concerns with the excess phosphates on land, and how they were to be removed;
· Were we confident that all of the accountable authorities and service providers were using the same numbers and parameters in their algorithms;
· Apprehensions with which forums were taking place to communicate and update the farming community as most were not on topic with the situation;
· Concerns with the timing of delivery of the ‘p’ credits the scheduling of the 65.3 kilos, how much was going to be available and when;
· Concerns that in terms of the nations capacity to provide many solutions to require land. Would agricultural food production still be sustainable?;
· Information should be sent out to the public on phosphate free household products;
· The government should have spent money years ago on filtering out phosphates from our waterways;
· Would the cessation of peat harvesting on the Levels help the phosphate issue due to it being less permeable?;
The Chair proposed and Councillor Blaker seconded a motion for the Phosphates Planning Sub Committee to:
a. Note the number of P credits being generated through the interim
measures. Based upon the contents of Appendix A and the supporting
Habitats Regulation Assessment, (Appendix C), 65.3 P credits for the River Tone sub catchment are being generated at a total estimated
cost to the Council of circa £3,54m;
b. Agree the pricing of one P credit for the River Tone sub
catchment area at £54,222 + VAT per kilogram of offset required
c. In line with the Council’s charging policy, to recharge the cost of
P credits on a full cost recovery basis;
d. Note that the principle the Council’s interim programme of phosphate
mitigation measures has Natural England support (see Natural England
letter dated 6 June 2022 enclosed as Appendix D);
e. Note, continue with all further necessary preparations to enable the use
of P credits to provide the required mitigation and support the
determination of some planning applications held in abeyance for the
River Tone sub catchment;
f. Note, that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) will use the P Credit
Allocation Procedure as agreed by this Phosphates Planning Sub
Committee in February 2022;
g. Agree that, where a developer has purchased P credits (or tenths
of P credits), and the planning permission ... view the full minutes text for item 16.
Proposed guidance for the determination of planning applications proposing the use of new Package Treatment Plants or the upgrading of existing Package Treatment Plants/Septic Tanks as phosphate mitigation. PDF 1 MB
The purpose of the report was to provide advice as to how Somerset West and Taunton Council would apply advice received by Natural England and Environmental agency in relation to the Package Treatment Plants or Septic Tanks as phosphate mitigation. The NE/EA advice received was to be jointly published by the Somerset Authorities in due course.
This report set out how this guidance should be applied at a local level in
Somerset West and Taunton (SWT) and relates to the determination of
planning applications that propose to use Package Treatment Plants (PTPs)
or Septic Tanks as phosphate mitigation.
The report covered both the use of new PTPs as phosphate mitigation, as well as upgrades to existing poorly performing PTPs and septic tanks. It sets out when using this equipment as mitigation would be acceptable to SWT Council, as the Local Planning Authority (LPA), and what steps planning applicants are required to take to secure their proposed phosphate mitigation.
During discussion of this report the following questions/comments were raised
· Concerns with who would be monitoring existing septic tanks that discharge into the watercourse. This needed to be monitored in the long term with an up to date database;
· Concerns with chemicals used in septic tanks getting into the watercourse;
· Concerns with the impact on the rural community that used septic tanks and the increased cost on the rural community;
· Concerns with slurry tanks and their capacity for run off into the watercourse if they overfill;
· Concerns with the gasses released from slurry tanks;
Councillor Coles proposed and Councillor Habgood seconded a motion for the
Phosphates Planning Sub Committee to:
a. Agree that the use of new PTPs and the upgrade of existing poorly
performing PTPs and septic tanks as phosphate mitigation is acceptable in
b. Agree that the use of biological systems in PTPs should be preferred over
chemical dosing in PTPs which should only be used as a last resort.
Applicants must demonstrate that they have considered the use of a
biological system and should show that the use of a biological PTP would
not be sufficient to meet their phosphate mitigation requirement for the
development proposed, before the LPA will consider a chemical dosing
PTP as a possible mitigation option;
c. Delegate to the Assistant Director Strategic Place and Planning in
consultation with the Chair of the Phosphates Planning Sub Committee,
clarifications and amendments to processes which govern the long-term
maintenance and management of PTPs/Septic Tanks. It is proposed that
these are to be agreed on a case by case basis between the LPA and the
The motion was carried.
Next steps – Lobbying of central government continued, focused on the following key issues;
· Natural based solutions only part of the solution-scale of land = a ‘Long Run Meadows’ (i.e. circa 26 ha) every other year.
· Need Government intervention on national solutions and clarity around regulations.
· Partnership working is critical – Natural England, Environment Agency, Wessex Water, Somerset Rivers Authority, and the development industry.
The Sub-Committee raised concerns on how the resolution of the treatment of treatment plants/septic tanks be translated into action and fitted into the planning process. Specified that developers needed to prove that chemical treatment was the last resort, with no other alternative for removing phosphates.
Any other business
The Chair requested that correspondence was sent out to re-contact with small and medium enterprises with applications that were currently stalled due to the phosphate issue to gauge their interest in taking our ‘p’ credits they were likely to use to mitigate the phosphate issue.