Agenda item

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services introduced the report and advised that the Somerset County Council were holding a Nutrient Pollution Workshop on 01 November.  He felt it may be prudent to defer the report but invited members comments. 

The Lead Specialist for Built Environment advised that the report proposed one approach to delivering phosphate mitigation in South Somerset.  Planning applications that had been agreed recently had provided their own ring-fenced solution to mitigating phosphate discharge at the sites through a number of individual methods. However, not every developer had the capacity to control the phosphate reduction solutions required on-site, particularly smaller developers and they were reliant on acquiring a solution from a third party.  The En Trade solution was targeted at those developers.  He said that approximately 360 planning applications were awaiting a phosphate solution and the majority were small developments.  He noted that Members had agreed that SSDC would not acquire land itself to provide a solution, which Somerset West and Taunton Council had done in part by converting land into a wetland area.  Therefore SSDC were enabling a solution through a third party, En Trade, who were bringing together landowners to provide a land-management solution working with Natural England.  En Trade would market the solution to developers who could purchase a credit and SSDC would ensure the land-management solutions were working correctly and met Natural England’s view of suitable mitigation.  The project would require monitoring in the future and be resourced to ensure future delivery.  There would also be a register of the credits sold to each developer with a legal agreement before development could start.  The developers needed assurance that the phosphate credit they acquired would be accepted and legal advice taken had said it would be inappropriate for SSDC to set the credit price in a commercial market.  There could be issues if the phosphate credit cost was high so that a developer could claim a lack of viability at a site and could no longer afford to pay Section 106 contributions but this would not be accepted as detailed in recommendation b (ii). The proposed project was the first solution for developers which was not site-specific and would allow development to commence.  It was ideal for developments of one to nine dwellings as they did not attract Section 106 contributions. Other parties were coming forward with solutions but they were resource intensive to set up.  Wessex Water were proposing to improve their water treatment plants in affected areas to the highest possible level but this would not be completed before 2028.  A 1kg phosphate credit was expected to cost around £55,000 because of the in perpetuity monitoring required for a land management solution.  Agreeing the recommendations would allow the opportunity for the small to medium developer to gain planning permission. 

In response to questions from Members, the Lead Specialist for Built Environment, the Director for Service Delivery and the Monitoring Officer advised:

·         SSDC and Somerset West and Taunton Councils were the two areas of Somerset which were most affected by the phosphate issue.  The SWaT solution would release up to one years credits and so it was an interim solution.   When all 5 councils became one there would be more land management assets to consider for a longer term phosphate solution.

·         Following the Motion to Council in March, letters had been sent to DEFRA and DLUHC from SSDC and other Somerset Councils and their stance had changed from land management solutions to the upgrades to the existing water treatment plants but not before 2030.

·         Off-site solutions included wetland creation, orchard / woodland planting and fallow land, however, fallow land was a short term solution. 

·         4 to 5 hectares of wetland in SWaT area was enabling over 700 houses to be built in Taunton.

·         The creation of wetlands would have a biodiversity benefit as well as the phosphate solution.  The most effective solution was a wetland area immediately downstream of a sewage treatment works but they may require stripping out and re-planting every 15 years.

·         Most of the wetland areas in South Somerset would be off-site solutions as they would follow the line of the rivers Yeo, Isle and Parrett.

·         SSDC could not limit the credits to developers of 1 – 9 dwellings as they did not control the market.

·         En Trade were set up to deliver a number of market sales of credits with new landowners but SSDC could only sign up for the first round of sales to review the effectiveness against the corporate plan position.

·         It would be wrong for SSDC to dictate to a developer where they obtained their phosphate credits.  This would be anti-competitive.

·         En Trade had proposed that they would not sell more than 15% of the credits to any one applicant.

·         The recommendation could be amended to refer to land management promoters who complied with the requirements.

·         Developers who had already started a site would probably be outside the scope for phosphate testing. 

·         The En Trade solution was one mechanism among many which could provide a solution to phosphate mitigation.

·         The use of fallow land as a phosphate credit was a short-term solution at the beginning of the phosphate issue in 2020.

·         The Gladman development which had recently been given planning permission at Brimsmore proved that Section 106 contributions were viable with an on-site sustainable drainage system. 

·         Riparian buffer strips and cover crops were mentioned in the Royal Haskoning report as phosphate mitigation measures for agriculture.

The representative of Natural England said they had worked with EnTrade and the market had been set up on the Lyndsay mechanism which favoured smaller developers.  Larger developers were able to source their own mitigation options. 

During discussion, the following points were made:-

·         Concern that land left fallow in the scheme could deteriorate.

·         Concern that endorsing a particular supplier would fetter the council’s discretion on planning applications and leave them open for judicial review.

·         There was a need to provide infrastructure with some developments and SSDC could lose Section 106 funding if developers successfully argued that a site was no longer viable because of the cost of phosphate credits.

·         SSDC should look at the solution being offered by SWaT as they appeared to control who purchased the credits, so prioritising small construction sites.

·         Constructed wetlands of 4 or 5 acres next to rivers near Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) would remove almost all of the phosphates going into the SSSIs.

·         Planting a winter cover crop in arable fields or, injecting manure into the ground would help to prevent phosphate run-off.

·         Regular water sampling should take place so it was known where the phosphates were coming from and the quantity. 

The Vice Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said that the comments raised at their meeting were similar to the Executive discussion. She asked that workshop briefings be held for Members so they could understand the various solutions offered when determining planning applications.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chairman thanked Members for their debate of the issues and she proposed that the report be noted and a further report be presented to the next meeting of the Executive in November with further clarification on the points raised by Councillors both at Scrutiny Committee and District Executive.  This was seconded by Councillor Peter Seib and agreed by 8 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.  Councillor Adam Dance abstained from voting as he had not been present for the whole of the debate.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)