Disposal of foul sewage: Consultation Paper.

STATES OF JERSEY

DISPOSAL OF FOUL SEWAGE: CONSULTATION PAPER

Presented to the States on 8th February 2012 by the Minister for Planning and Environment

STATES GREFFE

2012   Price code: D  R.15

Department of the Environment

Consultation Paper

Disposal of foul sewage  8th February 2012

Purpose and type of consultation

This  Consultation  Paper  sets  out  the  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment's proposals to introduce planning guidance relating to the treatment and disposal of domestic  sewage  from  new  developments.  This  guidance  will  outline  the  policy context for foul sewage treatment, the potential risks for the environment, amenity and public health, and the information that is required for relevant planning applications.

The intention of the current Island Plan policy is to ensure that developments which discharge domestic sewage connect to the public foul sewer where it is reasonable to do so. There is some allowance, however, for the use of private non-mains sewerage systems in exceptional circumstances. Where a private system is proposed, applicants and designers are encouraged to provide sufficient detailed information at the planning application stage to enable a proper assessment of the suitability of the proposed system and its likely impact on the water environment.

The Minister would like to hear the views of those interested in and affected by the guidance. The Minister also wishes to gather views about the long-term direction of the Island's strategy for the treatment and disposal of foul sewage.

Closing date: 21st March 2012 _____________________________________________________________________

Summary

Water is one of the Island's most precious natural resources and land use planning has an important role to play in reducing the risk of pollution of ground water, surface waters and coastal waters from activities associated with new developments, including domestic sewage.

Island Plan Policy LWM2 (Foul sewerage facilities) requires proposed developments which  will  discharge  sewage  to  connect  to  the  public  foul  sewer  where  it  is economically feasible to do so, taking into account viability and practicability. In exceptional  circumstances,  however,  where connection  to the  public  sewer is  not feasible, the policy does allow for the use of packaged treatment plants and, for certain small-scale developments, the use of tight tanks, or suitable/improved existing septic tanks.  Where  these  private  non-mains  sewerage  systems  are proposed,  the  policy requires the submission of sufficient information to allow a proper assessment of the proposals.

This draft guidance sets out the information which must be submitted with planning applications to demonstrate the suitability of the proposed sewerage arrangements. In doing so, it emphasizes the importance of connecting new development to the public foul sewer wherever it is reasonable to do so, to reduce the risks of pollution to the Island's water environment associated with private non-mains sewerage systems (in accord with Policy LWM2).

Where it is proposed to use a private system, applicants must submit a detailed Foul Sewer Assessment' (FSA). This must demonstrate that the possibility of connection to the public sewer has been properly investigated and found to be either impracticable or not reasonably cost-effective, having regard to the cost thresholds included in the guidance. The FSA must also provide sufficient information to enable assessment of the suitability of the proposed private system. If the proposed private system is not a package sewage treatment plant, evidence must be included as to why such provision is not considered reasonable.

The draft guidance includes a simplified flowchart to assist applicants in selecting the best sewerage system for their proposed development and a checklist to help ensure that  the  relevant  principles  and  requirements  set  out  in  the  guidance  are  duly addressed.

In future, proposals for private sewerage systems must be properly addressed in detail as  part  of  planning  applications,  and  not  simply  reserved  by  condition  for  later consideration under the Building Byelaws. To assist with decision-making and to ensure a more efficient and effective service, building control officers will be involved in the assessment of the foul drainage aspects of development schemes at the planning application stage.

Further information:

The consultation can be viewed online at: www.gov.je/consult

Printed copies are available on request from the Department of the Environment, South Hill, St. Helier , Jersey, JE2 4US.

Please send your comments to:

Principal Planner, Planning and Building Services, South Hill, St. Helier , JE2 4US.

How to contact us:

Telephone:  01534 448 409 Fax:  01534 445 528 e-mail:  r.corfield@gov.je  

This Consultation Paper has been sent to the following individuals/organisations and will be presented to the States as an official Report:

Chairman – Environment Scrutiny Panel Director – Building Control

Director – Development Control Director – Environmental Protection Transport and Technical Services Property Holdings

Association of Jersey Architects

Jersey Construction Council

Chamber of Commerce

Environment Section, Société Jersiaise Public Consultation Register

Supporting documents attached:

Consultation draft advice note – Disposal of foul sewage

Consultation response:

A series of statements about the guidance and the strategic policy direction which underpins it are set out below, which may help with your response. Alternatively, you may submit any other comment that you wish to make on the content of this draft guidance note.

You may do this online on  www.gov.je/consult  or you can print and submit the questionnaire (which starts overleaf) to the address below.

Policy and Projects Section Department of the Environment South Hill

St. Helier

Jersey

JE2 4US

Please note that consultation responses may be made public (sent to other interested parties on request, sent to the Scrutiny Office, quoted in a published report, reported in the media, published on www.gov.je, listed on a consultation summary, etc.). If you have a particular wish for confidentiality please indicate this clearly when submitting a response.

I agree that my comments may be made public and attributed to me:   I agree that my comments may be made public but not attributed (i.e.anonymous):   I don't want my comments made public:  

If you agree to your comments being attributed to you, please provide your details below:

Other comments can be submitted in writing or by e-mail to the address below:

Policy and Projects Section Department of the Environment South Hill

St. Helier

Jersey

JE2 4US

If you or your organisation would like to discuss these proposals further, or would like more information, please contact the Principal Planner on 01534 448 409 or by e-mail at r.corfield@gov.je .

Deadline for consultation responses: 21st March 2012.

Department of the Environment

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Draft advice note

Consultation Draft Disposal of Foul Sewage

About supplementary planning guidance

The  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  may  publish  guidelines  and  policies (supplementary planning guidance) in respect of: development generally; any class of development; the development of any area of land; or the development of a specified site[1].

Supplementary planning guidance may cover a range of issues, both thematic and site- specific, and provides further detail about either, policies and proposals in the Island Plan, or other issues relevant to the planning process. It can also be used to provide information about how the planning system operates.

Where relevant, supplementary planning guidance will be taken into account as a material consideration in making decisions.

Supplementary planning guidance is issued in a number of different forms, including –

• Advice notes, which offer more detailed information and guidance about the ways in which Island Plan policies are likely to be operated, interpreted and applied in decision-making;
• Policy notes, which can be issued by the Minister, following consultation with key stakeholders, in-between reviews of the Island Plan, to supplement and complement the existing planning policy framework;
• Masterplans, development frameworks and planning briefs provide more detailed information and guidance about the development of specific sites and areas of the Island; and
• Practice notes, which aim to provide information about how the planning system's protocols and procedures operate.

The current supplementary planning guidance is listed and can be viewed on the States of Jersey website at www.gov.je/planningguidance.

Hard copies of all supplementary planning guidance can be obtained from Planning and  Building  Services,  Department  of  the  Environment,  South  Hill,   St. Helier , JE2 4US, telephone: 01534 445 508, e-mail: planning@gov.je

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Report

1. Introduction

1. Planning policy for the disposal of foul sewage is contained in Policy LWM2 of the 2011 Island Plan. The policy is set out in full in Section 2 and included among its main provisions are –

a  presumption  in  favour  of  connecting  new  developments  (which involve the discharge of sewage) to the mains public foul sewer;

allowance  for  considering  the  installation  of  packaged  treatment plants in exceptional circumstances where connection to the mains public foul sewer is not economically feasible; and

allowance for considering the use of existing septic tanks (where they have been shown to be performing adequately) and tight tanks for appropriate  small-scale  developments  in  exceptional  circumstances where connection to the main drains is not feasible and the installation of a packaged treatment plant would be unreasonable.

2. This guidance has been prepared to elaborate on Policy LWM2 and clarify how planning controls will be exercised on sewage disposal aspects of future developments through the planning application process.

Status of the guidance

3. This  is  currently  draft  guidance  produced  for  consultation  with  key stakeholders  and  interested  parties.  It  is intended  to supersede  Planning Advice  Note 1:  Disposal  of  Foul  Sewage'  (October  2005)  and  will  be reviewed and amended in response to consultation.

What is this guidance for?

4. The main purposes of this guidance are to –

set out the Minister's interpretation of Policy LWM2 and its detailed requirements;

prevent  sewerage  systems  for  new  developments  giving  rise  to environmental, amenity or public health problems;

outline  the  information  that  must  be  included  with  any  relevant application; and

help  provide  consistency  and  a  measure  of  certainty  in  decision- making.

Who is the guidance intended for?

5. This  guidance  is principally  aimed  at  assisting  landowners,  developers, builders, architects, designers, and all those who are involved in preparing and processing planning applications for new development.

What type of development does this guidance apply to?

6. This guidance applies to all new development which results in the discharge of sewage and/or an increase in sewage discharge to a drainage system. For the avoidance of doubt, new development includes –

building work or material change of use of a building (whether it is to construct or convert a building to create a new dwelling or other use, or to extend an existing building);

development which would potentially increase the occupancy of a building (including the creation of additional bedroom or potential bedroom accommodation in existing homes); and

the replacement of a cesspool (tight tank drainage system) with a sewage treatment system.

7. For  the  purposes  of  the  guidance,  sewage  is  defined  as  "the  contents  of lavatories  and  water  which  has  been  used  for  cooking  and  washing"2.

It allows  for  the  domestic  activities  of  those  who  work  in  commercial premises, as opposed to the effects of the business activities. It does not refer to trade effluent, unless the effluent is very similar to domestic sewage.

2. Island Plan policy for foul sewerage facilities

2.1  For ease of reference, Policy LWM2 is set out in full below.

Development  which  results  in  the  discharge  of  sewage  effluent  will  not normally  be  permitted  unless  it  provides  a  system  of  foul  drainage  that connects to the mains public foul sewer (to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment in consultation with the Minister for Transport and Technical Services).

Responsibility for the cost of making a connection and/or providing increased capacity in the public foul sewerage systems and pumping stations, so as to accept any additional flow from the development, will be the applicant's, and this may be the subject of a legal agreement between the applicant and the Minister.

In  exceptional circumstances  and  where it has been  demonstrated  by  the applicant that connection to the mains public foul sewer is not economically feasible, taking into account viability and practicability, consideration may be given to a packaged treatment plant offering full treatment, provided it is demonstrated that:

1. the  final  effluent  from  the  development  will  meet  standards  and conditions set by the Environment Department and the Minister of Transport and Technical Services; and

2 Department of Transport and the Regions, Circular 3/99

2. adequate provision is made for future operation, monitoring/telemetry and maintenance throughout the life of the plant, which is to the satisfaction  of  the  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  in consultation with the Minister for Transport and Technical Services and which is supported by a planning obligation agreement and meets the terms of the conditions of any required "Discharge Permit".

Planning permission may be granted in exceptional circumstances for small- scale development which results in an increase of foul sewage discharge and relies on non-mains sewerage disposal, including existing septic tanks (where these have been shown to be performing adequately) and tight tanks. Such developments might include: extensions and alterations to existing residential properties; conversions of existing non-residential buildings to create no more than two dwelling units or other similar small scale uses; incidental buildings within the curtilage of domestic dwellings; essential agricultural workers' accommodation;  and  other  small  scale  developments;  where  these  would otherwise be considered appropriate having regard to Policy NE6 Coastal National Park', Policy NE7 Green Zone' and other relevant policies of the Plan.

In such cases, the applicant must successfully demonstrate that:

1. connection to the mains drains is not feasible;
2. the installation of a packaged treatment plant would be unreasonable;
3. the increase in the amount of effluent as a result of development will be negligible;
4. ground conditions are appropriate and the development plot is of adequate size to provide an adequate sub-soil drainage system;
5. development will not create or add to a pollution problem;
6. the development will not place an unacceptable burden on amenity or cause health or environmental problems;
7. adequate provision is made for maintenance and monitoring; and
8. the development is in accordance with other principles and policies within the plan.

Where it is proposed to increase the potential sewage discharge to an existing non-mains sewerage system, which may give rise to the problems referred to above, there will be a requirement to make suitable improvements to the system, which may include a requirement to replace an old septic tank with a new packaged treatment plant.

For the avoidance of doubt, proposals for the use of septic tank systems, tight tanks and other such systems will not be permitted where:

1. a Discharge Permit' is unlikely to be forthcoming; and
2. the  proposals  are  put  forward  as  a  temporary  measure  with  the intention of connecting drainage to the public sewerage system at a later date and may give rise to problems referred to above.

Applicants are required to submit sufficient information regarding the means of sewage disposal to allow a proper assessment of the proposals. Where this information is not provided, the application will be refused.

Regard will be made to constraints on the capacity of the existing Sewage Treatment Facility and Drainage System in consultation with the Minister for Transport and Technical Services.

Proposals  for  the  development  of  land  in  the  vicinity  of  sensitive  foul sewerage  facilities,  as  indicated  on  the  Proposals  Map,  including  the packaged treatment plant at Bonne Nuit, tanker discharge points and pumping stations with odour control units, will only be permitted where they will not unduly restrict the activities of these facilities.

3. Background

1. Water is one of the Island's most vital natural resources. Clearly, itis essential to sustain life, but it also plays a crucial role in our economic development and social  well-being.  Particular  attention,  however,  needs  to be  paid  to the protection of water resources, because they are susceptible to a wide range of threats from activities associated with various land uses.
2. The overriding objective of Policy LWM2 isto reduce the risk of pollution to the Island's water environment by effluent from the foul water systems of new developments,  where  this  would  give  rise  to environmental,  amenity  and public health problems. The water environment includes groundwater, surface waters (e.g. streams, ponds and reservoirs) and coastal waters.
3. The above objective is reflected by the emphasis placed on connecting to mains public drainage wherever possible. It is recognised, however, that the mains public foul sewerage system does not cover the whole Island, that resources  for  future  sewer  extensions  are  unlikely  to the  available in the foreseeable future and that many of the more remote rural areas might never be reached by mains drains. As a consequence, a considerable number of Island properties (i.e. approximately 14% in 2011) currently rely on a variety of non-mains drainage systems, including septic tanks, tight tanks and private sewage treatment plants.3
4. In  the  circumstances,  it  is considered  unreasonable  to simply  place  a moratorium on areas not served by mains drains, when it will not be feasible for many buildings in the countryside to connect to mains drains. It is also acknowledged  that  in exceptional  circumstances  it  may  be  appropriate  to make use of alternative private on-site non-mains sewerage solutions for some new development proposals which may otherwise be desirable / permissible.

3 See Section 6 for definitions

5. There are often, however, environmental, amenity and public health problems associated with existing non-mains sewerage systems (e.g. because they are poorly sited, overloaded, badly maintained, or used beyond their effective life).  Relying  on  these  systems  may,  either  individually  or  cumulatively, increase the risk of pollution, which can adversely affect the ecology and chemical quality of the water environment. To ensure these problems are not perpetuated in any future developments, it is important to adopt effective policies, practices and procedures.
6. The Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  is particularly  keen  to avoid establishing  undesirable  precedents  for  non-mains  systems  which  have implications for future planned developments across the Island, leading to environmental,  amenity  and  health  concerns  and  serving  to undermine ongoing efforts to extend the provision of public sewers. It is maintained that connection to the sewer offers the most environmentally, economically and socially appropriate long-term solution for the Island.

4. Hierarchy of drainage options

1. Owing  to the  potential  for  and  frequency  of  pollution  of  the  water environment  from  private  non-mains  drainage  systems,  Policy LWM2  is based on a hierarchy of drainage options. The basic options are set out below and must be considered and discounted in the following order of priority –

connection to a public sewer;

private sewer connecting to a public sewer;

packaged sewage treatment plant offering full treatment;

a tight tank (for small-scale' development);

an  adequate  existing  septic  tank,  with  a  land  drain  to  provide secondary treatment (for small extensions and alterations to existing dwellings).

2. These are described below in sections 5 and 6.

5. Mains foul sewers

1. When drawing up sewerage proposals in association with new developments, the first presumption must always be to provide a system of foul drainage which  is connected  to the  Island's  public  sewerage  system  where  it is reasonable to do  so. This  can  either  be a  direct  gravity  connection,  or a connection via the use of an existing private sewer, or new pumped main where this is deemed to be achievable. Connection to the public sewer is the preferred option because, in this way, the sewage is directed to a purpose built and closely monitored sewage treatment system and avoids the additional environmental  risks  associated  with  using  private  non-mains  sewerage

systems. Proposals involving discharge to the foul sewer should be drawn up in consultation with the Department of Transport and Technical Services, which is responsible for administering the Island's public sewerage system.

2. Other than in the exceptional circumstances described in Policy LWM2 and elaborated on in this guidance, the foul drainage from new developments should  discharge  into  the  mains  public  foul  sewer.  Non-mains  drainage systems are not considered environmentally acceptable in areas where public sewers are readily available and will not be approved.
3. It should be noted that the existence of capacity problems or other operating problems  with  the  mains  public  foul  sewer  and  any  associated  pumping stations will not be regarded as a valid reason for non-connection, where this is reasonable in other respects. Nor will it be appropriate to put forward temporary provision of private sewerage systems for developments in areas where a connection to the public sewer is proposed at some future date.
4. The cost  of  making  a  connection  to  the  public  sewer  and/or  providing increased capacity in the sewer and any associated pumping station (i.e. so that it is able to accept the additional flow from the development) will fall to the applicant/developer. These costs may be the subject of a legal agreement.
5. The applicant/developer may also need to obtain agreements from the owners of land over which the drainage will run in order to connect to the public sewer.
6. Where an application proposes to connect new development to the existing public  mains  sewer  system,  the  applicant/developer  should  provide  the following information –

Scaled plans showing –

the location of the nearest public sewer and proposed connection point/s;

the proposed route of the drainage connection to the public sewer (N.B. this should be planned to avoid as far as possible potential damage to trees and archaeological remains);

any land not in the applicant's ownership in which drainage will be placed  (i.e. between  the  site  and  the  public  sewer)  and  proof  of agreement with the landowner;

details of any required above-ground pumping station/s structures (i.e. plans, elevations, sections);

a dimensioned distance from the development site boundary to the public sewer; and

the invert level of the proposed connection to the sewer and the finished ground levels of the development site.

Written  confirmation  from  the  Department of  Transport  and  Technical Services that –

the public foul sewer is able to accept the sewage effluent from the development; and

the  proposals  incorporate  or  make  provision  for  required infrastructure improvements, where appropriate.

6. Non-mains drainage

1. The use  of  non-mains  drainage  solutions for the  disposal  of foul  sewage effluent  will  only  be  considered  where  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  a connection to mains sewerage is not economically feasible.
2. Non-mains systems depend on their proper operation and regular maintenance if they are to function effectively (even if they have been appropriately sited, designed and installed). Where this is not the case, they can give rise to pollution of land and the water environment with associated environmental, amenity and/or public health problems.
3. The options for non-mains drainage include package sewage treatment plants, tight tanks and septic tanks and these are described below.

Package treatment plants

4. A  package  sewage  treatment  plant  is  a  wastewater  treatment  system constructed with minimal site work using prefabricated components, which offer  high  degrees  of  biological  sewage  treatment.  There  are  numerous variants of package plants, each with a slightly different treatment technique. The two most common system types are Extended Aeration Plants' which are for regular domestic use and Three Stage Sewage Treatment Plants' which can also be used for larger developments. All these plants involve settling  the  solids  before  and/or  after  a  biological  treatment  stage,  where micro-organisms are used to break down the organic matter in the sewage. They  also  all  use  electricity  for  the  sewage  treatment  process  (e.g. for mechanical aerators, air blowers and pumps, motors, compressors etc needed to oxygenate the liquid based treatment system). The final effluent that is produced in the plants is then disposed of to ground via a suitable drainage field. The plants will require maintenance and emptying of the settled gross solids at regular intervals.
5. There is a third type of package treatment plant currently on the market, known as a Filter Treatment Plant'. This has certain advantages over other systems. The plant separates liquid from solid waste in a pre-filter tank and waste  water  is biologically  filtered  to remove  pollutants.  The biological filtering uses a combination of natural stone fibre material (where bacteria grow and digest trapped organic material) and natural (oxygen rich) air draft. The main advantages include: cheaper running costs (because they use no electricity, require less servicing and need less frequent de-sludging); greater

resilience to normal household items poured down the sink or flushed down the toilet (e.g. tampons, baby wipes, fats, household cleaners); and better effluent quality.

6. All package sewage treatment plants will treat sewage effluent to a far higher standard than septic tanks. However, only those plants which offer full sewage treatment (including the addition of some form of secondary and if necessary tertiary treatment) are considered suitable for use in Jersey. These are the preferred non-mains sewerage option under Policy LWM2, should connection to the  public  sewer  prove  unfeasible,  because,  with  proper  care  and appropriate  conditions,  they  are  more  capable  of  treating  sewage  to a sufficient standard for it to be discharged to the water environment, without causing pollution and harming the environment, amenity and public health. They are also the only type of non-mains sewage treatment system that may be considered acceptable for areas where there are drinking water abstractions or where ground water is vulnerable to pollution. The Building Bye-laws require package treatment plants to be connected to an appropriate drainage field to provide further treatment.
7. Where the intention isto discharge into particularly sensitive/vulnerable water environments, or when the volume of discharge is relatively large, additional treatment of sewage effluent may be required. Examples of possible additional treatment  include:  reed-bed  systems;  disinfection;  filtration;  stabilisation ponds and gravel beds.
8. There  a  potential  problems  which  can  arise  when  using  package  sewage treatment plants. Biological treatment will only work effectively if the micro- organisms have the right conditions to stay healthy and problems can arise (depending on the chosen plant) where –

A development is likely to generate erratic or intermittent sewage loads (e.g. holiday accommodation) and the introduction of a flow balancing system will not be able to create a sufficiently even and steady flow;

The  system  is  not  regularly  de-sludged  in  accordance  with  the manufacturer's instructions and the sludge is allowed to build up so that sewage cannot flow freely through the unit (N.B. typically sludge should be removed annually for a single dwelling and much more regularly for a multiple occupancy unit);

Inappropriate substances are put into the plant that might damage or kill the micro-organisms (e.g. bleach and other chemicals used in cleaning, solvents, oil, grease and fats);

Surface water (e.g. from roofs and parking areas) is allowed to enter the system, reducing its capacity and causing solids to be flushed out, resulting in flooding and pollution;

A break in the power supply to plants using electricity (e.g. due to power failure or irregular occupation) leads to the death of micro- organisms; and

The  plant  is  not  properly  maintained  in  accordance  with  the manufacturer's instructions.

9. Use of Filter Treatment Plants' can reduce the risk and scale of the problems, because: the plants require emptying less often (i.e. 2–3 year intervals); the treatment does not rely on electricity; there are no  moving parts needing replacement; the system is generally more able to cope with a greater range of household waste items; and the effluent quality is higher.

Tight tanks (cesspools)

10. Tight tanks do not provide any treatment of sewage effluent. They are large sealed/watertight underground holding tanks used for collecting and storing sewage and they have no outlet for discharges. In principle, therefore, if they are  properly  constructed  and  maintained,  they  should  not  lead  to environmental,  amenity  or  public  health  problems.  However,  they  require regular emptying by a tanker which takes the raw sewage to the sewage treatment works. The frequency of required emptying can range from around 30 to 45 days or so, depending on use, in order to prevent overflow. As such, tight  tanks  are  not  particularly  sustainable  from  an economic  or  an environmental perspective.
11. Because tight tanks do not discharge effluent to the ground, they may be permissible in the case of certain small scale developments where –

it is not economically feasible to connect to the foul sewer;

the  installation  of  a  packaged  sewage  treatment  plant  would  be unreasonable;

ground  conditions  are  not  suitable  for  a  drainage  field  or  an inadequate area of land for a drainage field is available; and/or

there will be infrequent use (e.g. holiday accommodation) which may not be suitable for a treatment plant.

12. Policy LWM2 provides examples of what might be regarded as small-scale developments. This includes: extensions and alterations to existing residential properties; conversions of existing non-residential buildings to create no more than 2 dwelling units or other similar small-scale uses; incidental buildings within  the  curtilage  of  domestic  dwellings,  essential  agricultural  workers' accommodation; and other small scale developments.
13. It should be borne in mind that tight tanks must be installed on campsites to receive the chemical toilet waste which would kill a septic tank or package sewage treatment plant.
14. There are Building Bye-law requirements relating to the use, size and location of tight tanks and itis expected that their use will be limited.
15. There  are  potential  problems  which  can  arise  when  using  tight  tanks. Although they are simply holding tanks, the use of tight tanks can in practice give rise to pollution of the water environment if they overflow. This could

occur  as  a  result  of  insufficient  capacity,  poor  maintenance,  irregular emptying and/or lack of a suitable vehicular access for emptying. To help ensure  that  tight  tanks  do  not  overflow,  the  Building  Bye-laws  require  a

warning device to be fitted which alerts occupants of the building when the tight tank is 75% full.

16. Problems  can  also  occur  when  tight  tanks  are  damaged  or  misused  or deteriorate. As a consequence, they might no longer be impervious to the ingress of groundwater or surface water, or they might leak sewage effluent.

Septic tanks

17. Septic tanks are the traditional method of sewage treatment in rural areas, but they provide only a basic level of sewage treatment, far below that of package treatment plants. They generally comprise a two- or three-chamber system, which holds sewage from a property for sufficient time to allow the solids to settle and form into sludge at the bottom of the tank, where it undergoes very limited/rudimentary decomposition. The remaining liquid effluent in the tank then drains into the ground by means of an outlet pipe.
18. The liquid effluent in the tank typically contains about 70% of the original polluting matter and this is normally disposed of by soakage into the ground via  a  sub-surface  soakaway/drainage  field.  A  common  form  of  soakaway currently in use in Jersey is the pit-soakaway' (deep borehole soakaway), although  these  are  no  longer  permissible  under  the  Building  Bye-laws, because they often fail to work in wet weather conditions and invariably intercept the water table resulting in the effluent discharging directly and rapidly  into  the  groundwater.  Because  septic  tanks  only  provide  basic treatment, the Building Bye-laws no longer permit the installation of this type of system.
19. It is because there is a high pollution risk to surface waters or groundwater resources  from  the  liquid  effluent  discharge,  that  there  is  a  general presumption against the use of septic tanks for new developments. Policy LWM2 only allows for the use of existing septic tanks for appropriate new small-scale' developments, in exceptional circumstances, where these have been shown to be performing adequately. Such developments might normally comprise small extensions and alterations to existing dwellings. Furthermore, where there are proposals to increase the potential sewage discharge to an existing  septic  tank  (i.e.  where  no  opportunities  exist  to make  a  mains connection),  the  policy  requires  suitable  improvements  to the  system  to enhance effluent quality. This will be especially important when the receiving water environment is sensitive.
20. In the case of small-scale extensions and alterations to existing dwellings, required improvements might include upgrading the existing system with a properly designed drainage field (or drainage mound) and additional treatment where appropriate (e.g. reed-bed system, filtration, or gravel beds).

21. For other developments, improvements are likely to include –

replacement of the septic tank with a new package sewage treatment plant; or

installing a new package sewage treatment plant as an add-on to the septic tank  outlet pipe,  to  convert it into a  full sewage  treatment system.

22. As alluded to above, there are potential problems which can arise when using septic  tanks.  The most  common  problems  with  on-site  sewage  treatment systems are associated with drainage field failure. It is not unusual for many of these to fail within 10 years, but the speed of failure will depend on a number of factors, including –

levels  of  maintenance –  if  the  system  is  not  de-sludged  at  least annually, sludge discharges into the drainage field and the porous ground becomes blocked. As a consequence, the effluent cannot soak away and the system fills up, causing it to fail.

overly deep land drains – if these are deeper than one metre below ground level, they are in the anaerobic soil layer. Anaerobic bacterial growth produces a slime which again blocks the porosity of the soil leading to drainage field failure;

soil  conditions –  clay-based  soils  are  not  appropriate  for  drainage fields, because they have poor percolation characteristics. Even the porosity of sandy soils will eventually be destroyed by high levels of suspended solids and the black slime that results from decomposition (i.e. over 15 to 25 years);

the height of the water table – if the winter water table rises higher than the tank outlet, water will be drained from the drainage field back into the tank. When the water table falls again, the effluent from the tank which is full of solids drains from the outlet pipe and blocks the soil porosity of the drainage field;

added  loads –  adding  the  sewage  from  another  home/s  without increasing the size of the drainage field will leave it overloaded and unable to cope with the additional volume of effluent.

7. Assessment of planning applications

1. It is primarily the responsibility of the applicant/developer to demonstrate, through  the  submission  of  sufficient  information  that  a  proposed  new development will be effectively served by a sewerage system. It then falls to the Minister for Planning and Environment to be satisfied that the sewerage arrangements are suitable, prior to determining the planning application. Where insufficient information is provided to allow a proper assessment of the sewerage  arrangements,  or  such  arrangements  are  assessed  as  being unsatisfactory, planning permission will be refused.

2. To assist in assessing the acceptability or otherwise of proposed sewerage arrangements, the Minister for Planning and Environment will consult with and have regard to the views and information provided by appropriate bodies and interested parties. Key consultees will include –

Building Control,

Transport and Technical Services Drainage Engineers,

Health Protection,

Environment Protection,

Jersey Water (where there are proposals for non-mains drainage in Water Pollution Safeguard Areas'); and

any  other  party  which  the  Minister  of  Planning  and  Environment considers can provide constructive and relevant information.

3. The Minister's decision will be based on –

The information supplied by the applicant/developer;

The comments and information provided by consultees; and

Planning and Building Law and related policy considerations.

8. Foul sewer assessment

1. Where non-mains drainage is proposed, applicants/developers must submit a detailed  Foul  Sewer  Assessment'  (FSA).  This  must  provide  sufficient information to –

show that the possibility of public sewer connection has been properly investigated; and

provide the Minister, the Department and consultees sufficient detail to  assess  the  suitability  of  the  proposed  system  and  properly determine  whether  the  arrangements  for  the  treatment  of  effluent would create or add to a pollution problem.

2. The assessment should include the following –

a  statement  explaining  why  a  connection  to  the  public  sewer system is not practicable or economically feasible;

an  estimate  of  the  construction  costs'  of  the  approved  new development,  provided  by  a  suitably  qualified  person  (e.g.  a chartered quantity surveyor);

an estimate of the cost of providing a connection to the public sewer, confirmed in a report by a suitably qualified person (e.g. a

chartered quantity surveyor);

details of the proposed onsite sewage treatment system, including for existing systems a report of its condition and capacity;

results  of  the  site  assessment  for  the  development,  including ground percolation tests and trial hole analysis;

provision for the future replacement of the drainage field (N.B. drainage fields do not operate indefinitely and eventually need to be replaced, so this needs to be accounted for at the design stage);

details  of  the  measures  that  will  be  put  in  place  to  operate, monitor and maintain the system;

where  applicable,  a  statement  of  why  the  use  of  a  packaged treatment plant would be unreasonable; and

such  other  additional  supporting  information  as  may  be considered  appropriate  to  allow  proper  determination  of  the drainage proposals in accordance with Policy LWM2.

9. Why can't the development connect to the Public Sewer?

1. This is the fundamental question that must be answered by any applicant/ developer proposing the use of a non-mains system. In such cases, they must provide written evidence to demonstrate that they have fully explored all the ways in which their development might connect to a pubic foul sewer and show them to be either impracticable or not reasonably cost-effective. This evidence should be supported by accurate scale plans showing the location of the nearest connection point to the public sewer and its relationship to the development site boundary and any land in the applicant's ownership situated between the site and the public sewer.
2. In assessing whether new developments should connect to the public sewer, the Minister will take into account cost and practicality. All new development in sewer available areas' should connect to the public sewer, unless there are insurmountable factors which prevent connection being made (e.g. access for drainage over private land being denied).

Sewer available areas

3. A sewer available area' is an area of land served by an existing public sewer. Its size will vary depending on topography and/or the size and characteristics of  proposed  developments.  In  the  UK,  the  minimum size  for  a  sewer available area' is generally considered to be any land within 30 metres (100 ft) of an existing public sewer. This is the broad qualified definition used by the Environment Agency and reflects the fact that under the UK Building Act 1984, local authorities are given powers to require connection of premises that are within 30 metres of a public sewer when plans are submitted under the UK Building  Regulations.  In  Jersey,  however,  the  Transport  and  Technical Services Department has historically determined (in practice) that properties

within 100 metres of a public sewer are connectable properties', or properties which can be served by a public sewer.

4. It is important to recognise that this 100 metres rule of thumb' takes no account  of  topography,  or  the  nature  of  specific  development  proposals. Topographical  features  could,  for  instance,  render  impracticable  or prohibitively expensive any option to connect some proposed developments to a public sewer, even if they are within 100 metres distance. Whereas, for larger developments itis held that the extent of the sewer available area' should be increased because it is more likely to be easier and cheaper to connect  to a  public  sewer  over  a  distance  significantly  in excess  of 100 metres.
5. The current  extent  of  the  Island's  foul  sewerage  network  is shown geographically in Figure 1 and more detailed information is available on the Department's website at: www.gov.je/PlanningBuilding/LawsRegs/SPG/AdviceNotes/Pages/DisposalF oulSewage.aspx 

Figure 1: Foul Sewerage Network in Jersey

Costs

6. The costs involved in connecting to a public sewer will depend on a number of factors, including –

the number of homes or premises;

the distance to the sewer;

the depth of the sewer;

whether the connection can be achieved by gravity, or needs to be pumped;

any required improvements to the public sewerage system to enable the acceptance of additional flow from the development; and

land constraints (e.g. due to topography, existing developments, land ownership, sites of natural or historic importance).

7. In determining whether connection to the sewer is reasonably cost-effective, it will be necessary to weigh up the cost of making a connection against the cost of the overall development. In addition, it is generally held to be reasonable that there should be a premium for connecting new developments to the public sewer, over and above the cost of installing a private non-mains system. This reflects  the  benefits  of  main  sewer  connection  to  the  environment,  the developer, owners and occupiers. These benefits include enhanced property values; less risk of pollution and the avoidance of ongoing maintenance.
8. The level of the appropriate premium will vary depending on the nature and scale of the proposed development. As a general rule, the Minister is unlikely, from a cost viewpoint, to require a development to connect to the public sewer where –

the cost of connection to the public sewer would exceed –

10%  of  all  the  construction  costs  of  the  proposed  new development up to £500,000, plus

the  cost  of  a  private  treatment  system  (including  installation costs) combined; or

10%  of  all  the  construction  costs  of  the  proposed  new development up to £500,000, plus

5% of all construction costs above £500,000, plus

the  cost  of  a  private  treatment  system  (including  installation costs) combined.

(N.B. subject to a minimum premium of £5,000 at 2012 prices.)

9. Thus, by way of example, if the cost of connection to the public sewer is greater than the thresholds set out in the following table (for different-sized developments),  then  a  private  sewage  disposal  system  is likely  to be acceptable from a cost viewpoint.

10. Where the development proposal is simply to replace an existing non-mains drainage system (e.g. a tight tank or septic tank) with a package sewage treatment plant, the Minister still wishes to examine the economic feasibility of connection to the public sewer as a preferred option. In such cases, the Minister is unlikely to require connection to the public sewer, where –

The cost of connection to the public sewer would exceed the cost of a private treatment system (including installation costs) by £5,000 or more (@ 2012 prices)*

* cost to rise annually in line with RPI.

11. To assist with the Minister's considerations, an applicant who proposes to use non-mains drainage must submit details of the costs for both connecting to the public sewer  and  providing  a  private sewage treatment  system.  For these comparative purposes, the costs for private sewerage provision should take into  account  the  following  preliminary  and  capital  cost  items,  where applicable –

preliminary site investigation work;

plant unit costs;

installation costs;

commissioning;

pumping stations;

land drainage field;

outfall;

sampling point;

site access.

Other costs

12. When considering the comparative costs of connection to the public sewer and non-mains sewerage systems, applicants are also advised to take into account ongoing operational and maintenance costs associated with any proposed private sewerage system. This is important to avoid underestimating costs and ensure value for money. The ongoing costs for operating a non-mains system can be significant and will include, where applicable –

power consumption costs;

maintenance/service contract costs (N.B. which should cover the cost of replacing major mechanical and electrical items over the life of the plant);

sludge removal and disposal;

periodic replacement of the system.

13. Costs will vary significantly between different types of system. A report produced by the Environment Agency entitled Effluent disposal in sewered areas' (December 2008) provides useful guidance for comparing relative costs for different types of private sewage treatment systems, notwithstanding that the indicative costs are at 2005 prices.

Practicality

14. There may be issues of practicality that are material to an assessment of sewage disposal options. Consideration of whether it is practicable to connect to a public sewer will depend on whether there are prohibitive physical, legal and technical barriers to connection. Where this is the case, the developer should submit details in the foul sewer assessment'. Examples of such barriers to connection might be where –

the volume of the sewage effluent discharge is too small to pump over the required distance without giving rise to septicity problems[1];

the sewer run would need to pass under a major road or be diverted around a site of historic or archaeological importance or similar, making the cost unreasonable;

the ground conditions are not suitable for laying a sewer (e.g. where bedrock is close to the surface, leading to unreasonable costs);

the applicant/developer has no legal right to cross land between the development and the connection point to the public sewer and access is denied by the private landowner.

10. Details of any newly proposed package treatment system

1. Where there is considered to be justification for a non-mains sewer connection and a package treatment system is proposed, the applicant should provide the following details of the proposed system as an integral part of any planning application –

the type of package treatment system proposed and manufacturer;

a copy of a test certificate confirming the plant has been tested in accordance with EN 12566-3-2005;

performance results for the plant showing the treatment efficiency;

design  occupancy  for  the  plant  and  design  occupancy  for  the proposed development;

provisions made for operating the plant in the event of power failure;

design calculations for drainage fields and a plan showing size and location;

design  calculations  and  plans  showing  any  additional  treatment (e.g. reed-bed  systems,  disinfection,  filtration,  stabilisation  ponds, gravel beds); and

a copy of the proposed maintenance plan for the plant.

N.B.  Where a tight tank is proposed, it should be sized in accordance with

the Building Bye-laws.

2. The quality  of  final  effluent  discharge  from  sewage  treatment  systems  is measured  in terms  of  Biological  Oxygen  Demand  (BOD),  the  Suspended Solids  (SS)  and  the  Ammonia  (NH3).  This  is expressed  in the  form BOD: SS: NH3 and is measured in mg/L. Typically, the effluent from a septic tank (without a drainage field) measures 120:180:80, whereas that from a Filter Treatment' Package Sewage Treatment Plant might measure 4:3:3. By way  of  comparison,  distilled  water  is  0:0:0  and  the  Royal  Commission Standard for effluent quality from sewage treatment systems in the UK is 20:30:20.

11. Details of any existing system which is to be utilised for the development

11.1  The applicant should provide details of the existing system and any proposed changes, including –

details of the Building Permit for the existing system;

details of any Discharge Permit', where applicable;

the age and the design occupancy/capacity of the system;

a demonstration that the system has performed adequately (including the  historic record for  inspections,  maintenance,  problems  arising, remedial works and any improvements);

a system evaluation report' by a suitably qualified professional to give  an  overview  of  the  system's  status  and  functionality  and  to certify  that  it  is  working  properly  (N.B.  it  is  expected  that  the evaluation will include a hydraulic load test');

the design occupancy for the proposed development;

details  of  any  proposed  improvements  to  the  system  to  increase capacity,  improve  treatment  and  enhance  effluent  quality (e.g. additional plant, a new or improved drainage field and proposed additional treatment);

design calculations for the proposed improved system; and

a copy of the proposed maintenance plan for the system.

12. Site assessment

1. Waste  water  treatment  systems  must  be  sited  and  constructed  to prevent overloading of the receiving water environment. The suitability of the site for such systems will be determined having regard to a wide range of site factors. To this  end,  the  applicant  should  undertake  and  submit  a  detailed  site assessment, using information on –

the sub-soil conditions and groundwater characteristics;

the sensitivity and capacity of any receiving watercourse;

the vulnerability of the water catchment area;

site dimensions and ownership boundaries;

adjoining developments (existing or approved);

legal constraints (e.g. restrictive covenants, rights of way and land use policy designations);

infrastructure  constraints  (e.g.  underground  services,  roads, driveways, paved areas);

topographical constraints (e.g. the steepness and direction of slopes; proximity of rock to the surface; a high water table; waterlogged ground; and the location of watercourses, ditches, wells, boreholes, soakaways/drainage fields); and

other site constraints (e.g. existing ground contamination, made up ground, artificially raised ground).

Ground percolation tests

2. As part of the site assessment, a percolation test' will be required to –

establish the porosity of the ground;

establish if it is suitable to absorb the liquid effluent from a package treatment plant or septic tank efficiently and to remove the pollutants; and

determine the size of the drainage field area required.

3. The percolation test must be conducted by a suitably experienced person in accordance  with  BS 6297: 2007  and  the  technical  guidance  published  in support of the Building Byelaws. The results of the test must be submitted with the application.
4. If the ground cannot properly accept the liquid effluent, the drainage field will become blocked and the system will fail. In such circumstances, a proposed non-mains sewage treatment system will be refused and other possible options will need to be explored.

Trial holes (Trial pits)

5. Trial holes will be necessary to inform the site assessment. These are used to determine soil conditions and also the level of the water table in winter. The water table must not rise to within 1 metre of the pipes of the drainage field if itisto work effectively during the winter months. For guidance on trial holes, applicants are referred to the technical guidance published in support of the Building Bye-laws.

Site conditions and sewerage options

6. Where the applicant/developer has access to a large enough area of land which is well-drained,  relatively  flat  and  sufficiently  unconstrained  to enable discharge  of  sewage  effluent  to a  properly  designed  drainage  field, consideration should be given to using a package sewage treatment system. However, in the event that this is deemed to be unreasonable, it may be an

option to consider the use of an existing septic tank, provided that it can be shown that –

the scale of the proposed development is small (e.g. a small-scale extension or alteration to an existing dwelling);

the existing septic tank system operates effectively; and

improvements are made as appropriate to provide a properly designed drainage field.

7. Consideration of this option will need to take account of any groundwater or surrounding environment which is vulnerable to pollution (e.g. in locations where water is abstracted to supply drinking water).
8. In the absence of suitable land for a drainage field, the only possible options to a sewer are to use a tight tank (cesspool), or to discharge treated effluent to a watercourse.  Given  the  sensitivity  of  watercourses  to pollution  and  their limited capacity to absorb sewage effluent, the Building Bye-laws do not provide for this option and there will be a strong reluctance to watercourses being  used  for  this  purpose.  However,  this  may  be  permitted  in very exceptional cases where the discharge is from a package sewage treatment plant, which is able to achieve a very high standard of sewage effluent that can be accepted and diluted by the watercourse without risking harm to amenity, public  health  or  the  environment.  This,  in  turn,  is  likely  to require  the incorporation  of  additional  treatment  of  effluent,  such  as  a  constructed wetland,  which  exploits  the  natural  treatment  capacity  of  certain  wetland plants (e.g. reed beds). Potential applicants proposing a discharge directly to a watercourse  will  need  to provide  Building  Control  with  a  convincing argument  for  relaxing  the  Building  Bye-laws.  They  should  also  consult directly with Environmental Protection at an early stage. All such proposals will  require a  Discharge  Permit  and  Environmental  Protection  will  object where watercourses are considered to be particularly sensitive.

13. Operating, monitoring and maintenance

1. Island  Plan  Policy LWM2  requires  that  adequate  provision  is made  for operating, monitoring and maintaining non-mains drainage systems. This is especially  important  for  sewage  treatment  systems  which  require  a  stable environment to work well. The intentions of the policy in this respect are to ensure that the system continues to function effectively throughout its life and that  potential  problems  set  out  earlier  in this  guidance  are  avoided. Accordingly, the Foul Sewer Assessment' should set out –

who will be responsible for operating, monitoring and maintaining the system (including, where appropriate, details of any proposed formal agreements to this effect);

the provisions made for operating the system (e.g. for regular de- sludging,  substance  control,  prevention  of  surface  water  ingress,

clearing blockages, maintaining vehicular access);

the provisions made for regular monitoring of the system. Monitoring might, for example, include regular checks:

to look for signs of effluent overflow or blockage;

to establish that effluent discharge is free flowing and clear (changes in colour and an increase in odour are signs of a deterioration in quality);

to determine effluent discharge quality (through sampling and testing);

to measure liquid and solid levels in tanks;

to ensure that mechanical components are working correctly;

to look for signs of external structural damage which might lead to leakage of contents or ingress of water;

to  look  for signs  of  internal  structural  damage  due  to the corrosive environment (e.g. deteriorating internal divisions, metal struts and bolts and mortar joints); and

to look for signs of change in the surrounding environment which might point to problems with the system (e.g. where the ground is saturated with effluent, or where there are strong odours  or  unexpected  bacterial  growth  in  a  nearby watercourse);

the measures in place to warn of system failures (e.g. alarms and telemetry might be fitted to warn of electrical failure, overloading, etc.); and

the provisions for carrying out maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions to keep the system functioning. (N.B. This must be undertaken by an appropriately qualified and experienced contractor and the applicant will need to provide evidence of a service contract for this purpose. Details of the maintenance requirements will also need to be set out in a durable notice to be fixed in a suitable location  within  any  building  that  discharges  to  the  system,  in accordance with Building Bye-law requirements.

Depending on the nature and scale of the sewage treatment plant, applicants may also be required to –

employ trained maintenance personnel;

prepare and submit a contingency plan, to include alarm responses and plans for sewage containment during system failure and repairs.

2. In order to demonstrate that the monitoring checks and maintenance have been properly carried out, owners are advised to keep records. The items addressed in the records might include –

details of the type of system, manufacturer, installer, age, and the location of the system components;

monthly liquid effluent levels;

other items included in fortnightly/monthly inspections;

dates of de-sludging/emptying;

dates  and  details  of  other  maintenance/servicing  activities recommended by the manufacturer;

dates and details of problems arising and any remedial works; and

results of regular effluent testing.

3. If it becomes clear through monitoring that the system does not need regular emptying as anticipated or in accordance with the manufacturer's advice, this may be because the system is leaking. In such circumstances, there should be a thorough investigation. Where there is a leak it must be repaired quickly to reduce or obviate potentially serious pollution problems and the associated risks to the environment, amenity and public health.
4. It is very important to ensure that an alarm is fitted to a tight tank so that the owners are made aware when the tank needs emptying. Effluent levels should under no circumstances be checked by lifting the lid, because this will release toxic gases.

14. Circumstances where a package treatment plant might be unreasonable

14.1  If  the  proposed  non-mains  system  is  a  tight-tank  or  an  existing/upgraded septic tank, it will be necessary to provide written justification in the Foul Sewer  Assessment'  as  to  why  a  Package  Sewage  Treatment  Plant  is  not considered reasonable. Each case will have to be considered on its merits, but it may be for example that –

the site dimensions, site constraints, or ground conditions do not allow for an acceptable drainage field;

there  is  evidence that  an existing  septic tank  system  can  perform perfectly adequately for the purpose (either as it is, or with some upgrading);

the additional costs of a package treatment plant are not warranted, given the nature and scale of the proposed development;

the flow of sewage from the proposed development and the degree of maintenance  is  likely  to  be  erratic/irregular  (e.g.  holiday accommodation) and would seriously impair the biological treatment process in a package plant;

the site is in close proximity to an abstraction location for a drinking water supply;

the  biological  treatment  process  in  a  package  plant  would  not  be sufficiently resilient to cope with the types of products that are likely to be put into the system.

15. Demonstrating that the proposed system is satisfactory

1. In order to demonstrate that the proposed non-mains system is satisfactory, the foul sewer assessment' must provide evidence to clearly show that there will be no adverse effects on the environment, amenity and public health. More specifically, the assessment should show that the proposed arrangements and associated effluent disposal system –

will not contravene the Building Bye-laws and required standards for design and construction;

will not adversely affect existing or potential surface or groundwater sources used or likely to be used for public or private water supplies due to the percolation or run-off of sewage effluent (e.g. because of ground conditions or geological formations);

will not lead to a risk to public health or cause a nuisance;

will not lead to the entry of any poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter, or any solid waste matter into the water environment, to the detriment of water quality (i.e. having regard to site hydrology and geology);

will  not  lead  to  raw  or  partially  treated  sewage  entering  into receiving waters or onto land, to such an extent as to damage or undermine the environment and amenity value of the locality or any other area (including environmentally sensitive areas (ESA), Sites of Special Interest (SSI) and public open spaces;

are supported by evidence in the form of tests to show that the use of any soakaway/drainage field will be appropriate and that it will not be overloaded by effluent to the extent that it may lead to problems of ponding, sewage flooding, pollution, or nuisance (i.e. due to the quality  or  quantity  of  the  new  discharges  by  themselves,  or cumulatively with existing discharges in the area).

2. The abovementioned factors to be included in the foul sewer assessment' are broadly in line with UK guidance, set out in DETR Circular 03/99 and the Building Bye-laws. If the evidence in relation to one or more of these factors demonstrates that a proposed development with a non-mains system is likely to lead to a significant environmental, amenity or public health problem in the area, this will normally be sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission for the development.

3. To help demonstrate that the non-mains drainage system is acceptable the applicant  must,  in  addition  to the  provision  of a  foul sewer  assessment' document,  provide  the  following  information  in support  of  the  planning application –