Agenda item

A resident asked a number of questions relating to the on-going phosphates issue and Councillor Tony Lock, as Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services responded as follows:

Q 1. Why has the council failed to meet the deadlines for the phosphates matter with numerous extensions

Since the issue of Natural England’s letter in August 2020 South Somerset has worked closely with the other councils in Somerset to develop an approach to assessing the likely phosphate impacts arising from new developments and identifying a range of small scale solutions that allow for “off mains” schemes to deliver private treatment works, upgrade existing private works and secure land use management solutions on an individual basis.

Where delays have occurred is in the delivery of a strategic scale land use management solution that would be agreed by Natural England (as the relevant technical adviser) and secured over an in perpetuity term. This is not surprising as the work involves engagement with 3rd party landowners, persuading them of the value of engaging in projects that will tie up their land for 80+ years and ensuring that any land use solutions deliver levels of mitigation and management that meet the requirements of Natural England. This is not a quick process, and in terms of the capacity of each local authority not something that can be readily project managed in the short term, particularly given the lack of detailed guidance from others regarding the types of mitigation that would be acceptable and the efficiencies they could achieve.

Furthermore, having presented numerous councils with what is effectively an embargo on development consent, Natural England, along with a number of relevant government bodies including Ofwat, Defra and DLUHC have struggled to provide meaningful guidance and support to the affected councils such that we are each individually trying to deal with what is a national issue.

From very early on in the process the Somerset Councils presented a view to central government that the real solutions to phosphate reduction lay in engineering upgrades at sewerage treatment works and not land use changes. As late as March this year however Defra remained committed to the delivery of phosphate reduction for new development by way of land use change.

It is welcome that in its further publications in July 2022 DEFRA and DLUHC both acknowledged that significant improvements were required at all affected sewerage treatment works to achieve the highest possible technical efficiencies, however this move has come very late in the day and will not (based upon current timetables) deliver until 2030.

Q 2. Why can’t we install Klarkgester units as a temporary measure when your consultant ( Royal Haskins) stated that they were an acceptable means of reducing Phosphates

The National Planning Policy Framework requires that in the first instance connections are made to public sewerage infrastructure rather than to private works. Had DLUHC wished to remove this barrier to the use of private solutions it could have re-drafted the NPPF but has not done so. As such the NPPF informs the decision making for not only planning authorities but also Natural England and the Environment Agency who would need to licence any solutions not covered by the “General Binding Rules” that deal with private sewerage schemes through the building regulations.

Q 3. Do they see a necessity to extend the Jan 2023 deadline

We are hopeful that our work with En Trade has made good progress recently and we are jointly going through the relevant legal agreement wording with the respective solicitors and Natural England’s advisers.  Provided we can reach a satisfactory conclusion a report to full Council can hopefully follow on quickly allowing for the first credit sales. That said, we anticipate the early credit market will enable the release of housing within the hundreds whilst we have in excess of 4,000 dwellings affected so we how that January 2023 will see the start of a solution but recognise it will not deliver for all so further extensions will be required.

Q 4. What is the status of the meetings with Entrade, has the contract been signed?

We are meeting En Trade on a weekly basis and are hopefully reaching the end of this process.

Q 5. When will the credit system go live

Ultimately as a market operation this is in the hands of En Trade however we believe the new year to be a reasonable date.

Q 6. How much will 1 credit cost to build a bungalow when Taunton dean have set a cost of £540 ? Will it be the same for SSDC buildings, is there a basic price across Somerset

The cost of a credit is a market issue as we are reliant upon 3rd parties to deliver the projects requiring land owners to agree to tie up their land for 80+ years. I do not know where a figure of £540 comes from, their officers have advised ours that a cost per dwelling of about £55,000 is more likely. This ties in with advice we have had from authorities in Kent and the Solent where that have been dealing with the issues for far longer. Last week we were advised that projects in Eastleigh (Hampshire) will cost about £10,000 per plot.

There can be no fixed price as the issue is not the payment of a tariff to build a certain quantum of development, rather it is a need to offset varying levels of phosphates released from sewerage treatment works, so for an unpermitted sewerage treatment works (of which South Somerset has many) the costs will be 10 x those for a Sewerage Treatment Works with an efficiency of about 0.5 millilitres of phosphate per litre of released water.  As such the costs of phosphate removal are a post code lottery rather than based upon any form of viability appraisal land significantly prejudice rural communities that are generally more reliant upon unpermitted works.

The resident expressed his disappointment that houses were being constructed close to his property with no phosphate credit payment at the site.

Another resident referred to the minutes of the informal meeting of the District Executive held on Thursday 3 June 2021 where Members had agreed a grant of £390,000 from the Affordable Housing Capital Programme Reserve to Bournemouth Churches Housing Association (BCHA) as a contribution towards the costs of the purchase and refurbishment of a property in Yeovil, to provide emergency accommodation and improved support for people who are homeless, rough sleeping or at risk of rough sleeping in South Somerset.  The resident asked that in the light of the refusal by SSDC Area South Committee for planning permission by BCHA for the change of use of the property known as Acacia Lodge in Yeovil, what was the status of the grant award, was the money still held in the Affordable Housing Capital Programme Reserve and did BCHA have access to it, or would the decision need to be revisited by the District Executive and Chief Executive for it to be available for a further proposal?

The Director for Place and Recovery confirmed that the grant remained in the Capital Programme Reserve for its original purpose and the Council awaited the next proposal from BCHA.