Agenda item

Erection of a foul pumping station, water booster station and gas pressure reducing station to serve the permitted 2000 dwellings under outline application 42/14/0069 on land at Comeytrowe/Trull

Erection of foul pumping station, water booster station and gas pressure reducing station to serve the permitted 2000 dwellings under outline application 42/14/0069 on land at Comeytrowe/Trull

Comments by members of the public included;

·         The wet well proposed was not compliant with current Design and Construction Guidance;

·         Concerns that no foul water equipment could be completely sealed;

·         Mixing gas and sewage was a known safety risk;

·         Concerns with the location of the pumping station. The entire facility should be moved further south with an access off the spine road;

·         What assessment has been made of the transport difficulties of bringing a generator to the site on a narrow lane which can be busy and flood on occasions should this facility fail;

·         Concerns with how the storage tank operates;

·         What preventions were there in preventing overflow from entering Galmington Stream and then the river;

·         Concerns that there we no details of the downstream piping;

·         Concerns with the storage capacity of the existing sewers;

·         Concerns that no environmental impact or noise, vibration or environmental assessment for the application has been carried out;

·         Concerns with odours;

·         Concerns with the cycleway being so close to the site;

·         Concerns with heavy traffic entering and leaving the site;

·         Concerns with the increase of vermin on the site;

·         No consideration for existing residents has been taken;

·         Concerns that this was a premature application;

·         Concerns with the impact on the wildlife on the Galmington Stream and the River Tone due to increased risk of flooding and pollution;

·         A further opening to allow vehicular access would be needed to protect emerging cyclists and pedestrians;

·         Concerns with hours of operation, use of equipment, lights and nuisance factors;

·         Can the developer and the planning authority confirm that the proposal would not exacerbate the existing high levels of phosphate pollution in the River Tone, its tributaries and Somerset Levels;

·         How did this proposal fit with Somerset West & Taunton’s vision as a Garden Town;

·         Concerns that the application did not satisfy DM1 and DM5 of the Core Policy requirements;

·         A great deal of work had been undertaken in partnership with SWT and County Officers to help bring forward the new urban extension;

·         The vast majority of utilities infrastructure would be installed below ground. Above ground the only visible plant and equipment was contained within standard green kiosks, with water booster station and foul pumping station enclosed within a palisade fencing compound. Additional landscaping including the planning of hedging and trees to screen the kiosks and vehicle hard standing;

·         There was no flood risk associated with this development, confirmed by the consultees responses from the Environmental Agency and Lead Flood Authority; 

·         There was no risk of pollution to the Galmington Stream, confirmed by Wessex Water in their consultees response to SWT;

·         There would be no unacceptable noise, odour or health and safety issues arising from the installation of the pumping station;

·         The application proposed would include a standard pumping station that meets all the requirements of the National Guidance and had a minimum distance of 18 metres to the nearest residential property ensuring that residents were unaffected by odour, noise and vibration;

·         No impacts on residential amenity;

·         The proposed utilities were an important and timely element of infrastructure that was required to deliver the Council’s urban extension at South West Taunton;

At this point in the meeting a 30 minute extension was proposed by Cllr Coles and Seconded by Cllr Habgood;

At this point in the meeting the Chair proposed a 10 minute break;

Comments by Members included:

·         Concerns that the developers were not taking the residents’ concerns seriously;

·         Concerns with the impacts on the wildlife and noise vibration all year around;

·         Concerns that the developers choose the cheapest location for the pumping station;

At this point in the meeting a 30 minute extension was proposed by Cllr Coles and seconded by Cllr Habgood.

·         Concerns with road safety on the site;

·         Flooding concerns;

·         Concerns with harm to nearby properties;

·         Bat survey and light condition was required for this application;

·         Concerns with the cumulative impact of the development on nearby residents;

At this point in the meeting a 30 minute extension was proposed by Cllr Coles and seconded by Cllr Habgood.

·         Concerns with the lack of consultation from the developers with residents;

At this point in the meeting a 30 minute extension was proposed by Cllr Coles and seconded by Cllr Habgood.

Councillor Morgan proposed and Councillor Habgood seconded a motion for

Conditional approval APPROVED as per Officer Recommendation with an additional Condition 10 for noise emissions and amendment to Condition 01 as per update sheet;

The motion was carried.