Agenda item

Retrospective application for construction of lagoon to store waste from septic tanks to be used as fertiliser in agriculture.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal along with the relevant planning policies. The site location, access arrangements, and layout were explained, accompanied by views of the underground tanks and lagoon, including perspectives from across the valley.

The proposal sought the retention of the lagoon, with an annual average of two deliveries per day and a condition allowing a maximum of five daily deliveries. The Case Officer highlighted the operational need for the facility, noting that the nearest septic tank disposal sites were in Poole and Yeovil. Key site constraints were outlined, and the main planning considerations included air quality impacts on protected European Sites, the visual impact on the Dorset National Landscape, and the effect on the use of the public right of way. The Case Officer recommended granting planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report and update sheet.

Public Participation

Helen Simpson described the location as three valleys situated next to the lagoon. She explained that a bridleway led up the hill to a point where visitors could enjoy a breathtaking view across the area; however, she stated that this experience was now being ruined by the smell of sewage. She reported that sewage was being injected into the ground, and along the length of a small valley next to the path, sludge was emerging visibly. She expressed shock that such activity was permitted and argued that small valleys, which cannot be farmed, should be protected. She added that the valley had originally been filled with sewage before the installation of the current system.

John Simpson raised numerous concerns, questioning why Buckland Newton should be used as a dumping ground for waste. Drawing on his experience working on a farm, he highlighted the volume of water involved and the impact of rainfall on sewage levels, noting the potential dangers associated with this. He explained that during periods of continuous rain, the land became too wet to allow the lagoon to be emptied, which could lead to further issues. He stated that greater clarification was needed regarding the proposed cover.

The agent explained that the lagoon was required due to recent regulatory implementation. He stated that restrictions on the movement to and from the storage lagoon would limit capacity in accordance with regulations. He clarified that the proposed cover would be slightly raised to prevent water ingress. Mr Baker noted that the sewage was used as fertiliser and had always been brought in from various local sites. It was documented that the Yeovil and Poole sites were operating at capacity, and this site would help prevent discharge into the nitrate area. He added that transporting the material directly from source to farm would reduce the carbon footprint.

Members questions and comments

• Asked about the reason for the proposed cover, highlighting concerns regarding air quality.
• Queried the level of fill of the lagoon and how this would be monitored.
• Asked about the effectiveness of the cover, including how it would function.
• Questioned why the waste was being disposed of on a small scale rather than at a professional facility, and the necessity of treating it on site.
• Queried how untreated sludge would be managed, who would be responsible for policing its disposal, and where it would go thereafter.
• Sought clarification regarding fencing around the lagoon.
• Queried why the application was being submitted retrospectively
• Referred to the original structure, noting that complaints had been made about the site, which led to a site visit and a subsequent application by the applicant.
• Sought clarification on who would be responsible for maintaining the bridleway going forward.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Belinda Rideout, and seconded by Cllr Matt Bell, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant for the reasons set out in Section 16 of the officer’s report and the update sheet.