4 comments on “PfSH lobbying environment secretary for a review of waste-water treatment works permit levels in south hampshire sub-region

  1. It would be good to acknowledge that the WWTW for all PO postcodes flow to Budds Farm and Peel Common and neither flow nutrients into the harbours. Therefore, development in these areas can be proven to have big scientific basis to halt planning.

  2. It does appear that the impact of the guidance will be greatest rural area, and on brownfield sites. The lack of Total Nitrogen permit levels at mainly rural waste water treatment plans is an issue. The cost to mitigate in a rural area can be more than 3 times that in an urban area.
    Advocating the use of Grampian conditions it seems just kicks the problem down the road.

    1. I agree, The use of “Grampian” conditions does not free up housebuilding and sites subject to such cannot be funded to even commence development.

  3. NVZ and policy have been known about for years. In more recent years, inpacts of excess nitrate levels entering the Solen have been identified. The problem is not just one related to new build housing. It relates to all housing and requires a long-term solution which is funded by all occupancy which discharges waste water into the system. The WwTW companies have failed to invest in required infrastructure to mitigate against the problem. The solution lies entirely with them. It is bad enough when agricultural land is lost to housing but requiring yet more agricultural land to be taken out of production to mitigate nitrate pollution is even more stupid. he discharge permits should be tightened across all WwTW whether coastal or inland and the costs of improving treatment should be met from waste water bills applied to all households and commercial premises, not just to new build housing/hotel etc schemes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *