Arnside Parish Council

Cemetery Chapel

One of the conclusions of the Parish Plan was that the Cemetery Chapel is maintained at cost to the residents, but is very rarely used. It was therefore concluded that the Council should investigate the possibility of making it available and suitable for other uses, in addition to it being still available for funeral services. Accordingly, the Council has established a “Cemetery Chapel Development Committee” comprising of Councillors and a few residents. One of the first challenges is to meet the next requirements for the provision of means of access to all facilities for both able-bodied and disabled people alike. We have had confirmation from the Disability Rights Commission that it will be acceptable simply to provide a portable ramp, for as long as the Chapel continues in its present use only. If however we extend the use, we will need to provide toilet and refreshment facilities, in addition to heating and lighting. There is therefore a need to have all main services installed, and the cost is going to be very high. In addition we will need to build a toilet, cloakroom, and kitchen unit (probably in the location of the existing attached garage). The cost gets higher still!

United Utilities - Arnside Waste Water Transfer Scheme

The representatives of United Utilities have now provided a synopsis of their considerations of the various options, and these are reproduced below (note: the format of the original document has been modified, in order to make it compatible with this page, but the text, and the sense thereof, has not been knowingly changed):

Arnside Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Synopsis of Consideration of Options

Background

The flow of wastewater and storm-water through sewer networks is generally gravity driven. For this reason sewer networks tend to follow the natural drainage patterns of the land, downwards towards streams, rivers or the coast. As wastewater and storm-water flows join the sewer network they are conveyed through progressively larger pipes until they join the main trunk sewer which leads to the Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW).

WwTWs are located so as to intercept the flow after the last customer, but before the river, stream or estuary that receives the treated water. This inevitably leads to the positioning of WwTWs adjacent to rivers or along the coastal strip.

Alternatively, flows can be treated by a WwTW at a remote or elevated location, but this requires a Pumping Station and a transfer pipeline, known as a ‘rising main’. In this instance the Pumping Station must be located on the lower reaches of the main trunk sewer in order to receive flows by gravity. Because of the added cost and complexity of a transfer pipeline and Pumping Station, treatment at a remote location is not generally favoured.

The Arnside sewer network may be considered as three sub-networks which feed into one trunk sewer which conveys all flows to the WwTW. From East to West, these sub-catchments may be termed ‘Station Road’; ‘Silverdale Road’ and ‘Beech Lane’. The Station Road gravity sewer is so low that flows have to be lifted to the main trunk sewer by the ‘Promenade’ Pumping Station. The main trunk sewer then runs along the Promenade and picks up flows from Silverdale Road. The trunk sewer then runs past Ashmeadow and under the estuary footpath to pick up flows from Beech Lane. The combined flows are then conveyed by the trunk sewer to the existing WwTW, which is sited on the foreshore of the Kent estuary.

The existing WwTW is very primitive. In the near future, new European legislation will apply to the quality of the treated wastewater discharged to the Kent and it is the responsibility of United Utilities to ensure that stringent new discharge standards are met. It would be impossible to achieve these new standards by developing the existing WwTW. The new facilities that are required are extensive and will occupy an area of considerable size and could not be accommodated on the existing site. Further, space at the existing WwTW site is so restricted, access so poor and the area is so environmentally sensitive (the foreshore is within a Site of Special Scientific Interest; candidate Special Area of Conservation, etc.), that a Pumping Station which would have to continually transfer wastewater and storm flows could not be located there.

The main problem faced by United Utilities pic, therefore, is to find a suitable location in Arnside for a new Wastewater Treatment Works, or alternatively, a location for a Pumping Station and a pipeline route to transfer flows elsewhere for treatment.

Principal Criteria For Site Selection

Whether a Wastewater Treatment Works, or a Pumping Station are to be accommodated in Arnside, the requirements for a site are similar, and principally as follows:

Proximity to sewer network

The location must be at a point to which flows from the sewer network can gravitate. In practice this means the site must be adjacent to the existing trunk sewer, close to the point of connection of the last customers.

Access for vehicles and personnel

The new site must have sufficient access to accommodate: i) the initial construction traffic; ii) traffic associated with ongoing servicing of the new assets; and iii) emergency access at all times.

For either the Pumping Station or Treatment Works options, the construction traffic will include heavy earth moving plant and associated wagons.

The ongoing servicing needs of a Pumping Station will be limited to regular visits by supervisory personnel (e.g. once or twice per month with an escort size van), routine light maintenance (e.g. once per three months with transit van) and routine overhaul maintenance (e.g. once per three years with vehicle fitted with lifting gear).

The ongoing servicing needs of a Treatment Works are far more extensive and include daily visits of personnel, maintenance visits, deliveries and frequent movement of larger vehicles for removal of screenings, grit and sludge.

As the Company will be required by law to comply with the new standards on a continuous basis, emergency access is required to either a Pumping Station or Treatment Works, 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. This access must cater for lifting equipment in case of unplanned failure of mechanical plant. The mechanical equipment required at a WwTW is larger than that required at a Pumping Station and therefore access for larger lifting vehicles would be required.

Planning and environmental constraints

Such is the quality of the environment in and around Arnside that much of it is designated as special areas and protected by national and international legislation.

Current classifications include:

• RAMSAR Sites

• Ancient Woodland

• Site Of Special Scientific Interest

• Areas Of Outstanding Natural Beauty

• County Landscape Areas

Candidate classifications include:

• Special Area of Conservation

• Special Protection Area

These impose considerable restrictions on permissible development and hence acceptable locations for either a Wastewater Treatment Works or Pumping Station.

Consideration Of Individual Sites Within the Arnside Area.

The following sites were considered and ultimately rejected for the reasons given below.

Coal Yard

Pumping Station

A second Pumping Station would be required to lift flows from the ‘Beech Lane’ and ‘Silverdale Road’ sub-catchments and the gravity trunk sewer would have to be re-routed to reverse the direction of flow from the ‘Station Road’ sub-catchment. Relaying of this gravity trunk sewer would be very disruptive due to the depth and diameter that would be required and due to the need to break and make connections.

As an alternative to the above, flows could continue to flow in the current direction, utilising the existing Promenade Pumping Station, and a third Pumping Station and a new Promenade rising main provided to transfer all flows to Coal Yard.

In either case there is no benefit in the Coal Yard as the site for a main transfer Pumping Station.

The option was therefore ruled out.

Wastewater Treatment Works

A Pumping Station would be required to lift flows from the ‘Beech Lane’ and ‘Silverdale Road’ sub-catchments and the gravity trunk sewer would have to be re-routed to reverse the direction of flow from the ‘Station Road’ sub-catchment. Relaying of this gravity trunk sewer would be very disruptive due to the depth and diameter that would be required and due to the need to break and make connections.

As an alternative to the above, flows could continue to flow in the current direction, utilising the existing Promenade Pumping Station, and a second Pumping Station and a new Promenade rising main provided to transfer all flows to Coal Yard.

New pipework would also have to be laid to convey treated flows for discharge.

The option to place a WwTW at this location was costed and was of equivalent cost to that of the proposed scheme but with the following disadvantages:

(i) A new operational site would have to be developed in the vicinity of Arnside.

(ii) Two WwTWs would have to be operated rather than one (one at Arnside and one at Milnthorpe, rather than one at Milnthorpe sized to treat combined flows).

(iii) Disruption due to the construction of a Pumping Station adjacent to the main trunk sewer and pipework in the Promenade could not be avoided.

This Option was therefore rejected.

Frith Wood

Wastewater Treatment Works

• Frith Wood is at a higher elevation than the existing Treatment Works and so a Pumping Station and storage tank would be required adjacent to the main trunk sewer, at one of the other locations considered here.

• Access is not suitable. The access is via a narrow residential road and then via a private road. The road floods on certain high tides throughout the year and is therefore fitted with tidal boards.

• Construction of the facility and new access was not considered to be acceptable according to the planning restrictions applicable to the area as the Amside area is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc. and due to the classification of Frith Wood as an Ancient Woodland.

This Option was therefore rejected.
New Barns

Wastewater Treatment Works

• Access is not satisfactory. The access is via a narrow residential road and then via a private road, owned jointly by local residents.

• Construction of the facility was not considered to be acceptable according to the planning restrictions applicable to the area as the Amside area is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc.

• It was considered that development of a Wastewater Treatment Works on the green fields of New Barns would meet with considerable opposition from the local community.

This option was not costed but it is likely that it would be cheaper than the proposed solution (smaller WwTW, shorter pipeline). It was rejected due to environmental considerations.

Grubbins Wood

Pumping Station

• Access is not suitable for construction traffic or emergency access. A new road would need to be constructed for vehicular access. The only possible routes would be along the Tidal Crown foreshore or through Ancient Woodland.

• Construction of the facility and new access was not thought to be acceptable to the planning restrictions applicable to the area as the Amside area is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the foreshore as a Site of Special Scientific Interest; etc.

The site was therefore ruled out.

Wastewater Treatment Works

• Access is not suitable for construction traffic or emergency access. A new road would need to be constructed for vehicular access. The only route would be along the Tidal Crown foreshore or through Ancient Woodland.

• Construction of the facility and new access was not considered to be acceptable according to the planning restrictions applicable to the area as the Amside area is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the foreshore as a Site of Special Scientific Interest; etc.

• Grubbins Wood is at a higher elevation than the existing Treatment Works and so a Pumping Station would still be required.

• Grubbins Wood is located adjacent to the estuary footpath. It was considered that development of a wastewater Treatment Works on the green field of Grubbins Wood and the associated access would meet with strong opposition from the local and wider community.

The site was therefore ruled out.

Ogdens Boatyard

Pumping Station

• Access is not suitable for construction traffic or emergency access. The only vehicular access would be via a new road which would have to be constructed along the Tidal Crown foreshore. Construction of a new access and turning hammer-head was not considered to be acceptable according to the planning restrictions applicable to the area as the foreshore is a SSSI; etc.

• The site is too small to facilitate the required construction.

The site was therefore ruled out.

Beech Lane

Pumping Station

• Access is not suitable for construction traffic or emergency access. The only vehicular access would either be via a new road which would have to be constructed along the Tidal Crown foreshore or via Beech Lane. In either case the provision for vehicle turning would impact upon the foreshore. Construction of a new access road was not considered to be acceptable according to the planning restrictions applicable to the area as the foreshore is a SSSI; etc. Access via Beech Lane is not considered suitable as the road is very narrow and is privately owned.

• Construction of the Pumping Station and storage tank would impact upon the foreshore.

The site was therefore ruled out.

Ashmeadow

Pumping Station

This is the proposed Option. Please refer to the next section.

Wastewater Treatment Works

Ashmeadow was considered as a site for the construction of a new Wastewater Treatment Works as it would avoid the need for a transfer pipeline. Due to the limited area available only a compact process, such as a ‘membrane bio-reactor’ would be feasible. The Company is implementing such technology elsewhere in the North West Region.

• Although the biological process technology is compact, the need for screening plant and screenings skips; grit removal and grit skips; sludge storage and vehicular access for removal of screenings, grit and sludge increases the footprint that would be required.

• Such a development could be accommodated on the site, but with difficulty. The whole of the lawn area behind the house would be taken up. A number of mature trees would be impacted. An underground Pumping Station and storage tank similar to that currently proposed would be required.

To contain noise and odour the entire plant would have to be housed. The single building or series of buildings that would be required would have a very strong visual impact and would be unacceptable according to planning restrictions.

• Regular visits to the plant would be required for operation, maintenance and the removal by lorry of the by-products of treatment.

• This technology is very modem and United Utilities do not yet have extensive operational experience of it. It was felt inappropriate to compound the complexities inherent with the site, with those associated with a pilot plant.

This option was ruled out on the grounds of unacceptability to the local and wider community and due to planning considerations.

Decision To Transfer Flows Out Of Arnside

In view of the above considerations regarding the location of a WwTW in Arnside, especially considering the environmental sensitivity of the area and the lack of suitable land for development, it was accepted that flows should be transferred out of Arnside for treatment, despite the added cost and complexity that this would incur.

Milnthorpe As the Site For The Wastewater Treatment Facility

The option to transfer flows to Milnthorpe was considered as follows.

An operational WwTW already exists at Milnthorpe. However, the existing treatment capacity is insufficient to accept the Amside flows in addition to current load, without substantial investment and reconstruction. It is also a distance from Amside and requires a transfer pipeline of significant length. As a development site however, it does offer considerable advantages. As an existing site, services and access already exists, the site is remote from domestic residents and considerable land is available within the existing operational boundary. This minimises the visual, environmental and general nuisance impacts of development. It also offers obvious operational advantages to UU if a single WwTW can be used to meet the needs of two communities.

The advantages were ultimately considered to outweigh the disadvantages and as such the existing operational WwTW site at Milnthorpe was selected as the site for the new treatment capacity.

Selection ofAshmeadow Site as the Site for The Arnside Pumping Station.

The grounds ofAshmeadow are by no means an ideal site for the location of a Pumping Station. There are many reasons to avoid this site. Ashmeadow is in a very prominent position adjacent to the foreshore. The house is a Listed Building that attracts considerable public interest and sensitivity. The house is surrounded by attractive grounds containing many protected trees and lies within one of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the North West of England. The ground beneath the proposed construction area is predominantly hard and fissured rock which will make the required excavation difficult due to the proximity of housing. It would be in the Company’s best interest to avoid such a sensitive site if possible. Selection ofAshmeadow has come about because it represents the only practicable option.

In acknowledgement of the sensitivities of this site UU have acted to minimise the impact of the proposed development. The Pumping Station and storage tank will be underground, covered, grassed over and aligned so as to remain, as far as is possible, outside of the canopy of the trees. The control building will be placed unobtrusively on the site of the existing derelict swimming pool and will utilise local building materials such as natural stones and slate. It will contain equipment to treat air displaced from the storage tank in order to prevent release of odour. The only potential noise source will be the pumps but the underground location and solid cover will act to attenuate this.

The residual aesthetic impact of this development on the village will be minimal. The control building will be located in the farthest comer of the grounds from the front gate and will be largely concealed from view from the estuary footpath by the stone perimeter wall.

Construction techniques will be employed to minimise impact on local residents. It is proposed that a drill and charge method will be used to break rock for removal, in order to reduce noise and dust nuisance that might otherwise result from the use of more traditional methods. The technique has been tested in the Grounds and the tests supervised by the Environmental Health Officer for the Local Planning Authority (South Lakes District Council). It was concluded that the technique is appropriate. Test seismographs from positions at Ashmeadow House and at the nearest residential house do not reveal resultant vibration. In the event, it is likely that any excavation undertaken by this technique would be subject to the imposition of strict control criteria by the Local Planning Authority and would be closely monitored to ensure compliance.

It is appreciated that the ownership ofAshmeadow is currently changing hands from the Executors of John Barnes Estate to a registered Charity, Abbeyfield, which is committed to caring for the elderly. United Utilities understands that planning permission has been awarded for the development of the Ashmeadow House as a Care Home. The Company hopes that negotiations will enable construction to start as early as possible and would aim to complete works and clear the site in a timely manner in order to minimise impact on the new owner.

Consideration Of Pipeline Route between Sandside and Ashmeadow

Having identified the end points of the transfer pipeline, the options for the pipe route are limited. From Sandside pumping station the pipe will be routed Westwards in the old railway cutting. One road crossing will link this section to a section in the narrow strip of land between the B5282 and the old railway embankment. A further road crossing will link this section to a long section in the fields to the south of the B5282, as far as the railway. Thus apart from the two road crossings the pipeline from Sandside to the railway avoids the B5282. It should be noted that the pipeline could not be routed along the old railway embankment which runs parallel to the foreshore, as this is now managed by the Environment Agency as a flood defence, which could be breached by a pipe burst.

The railway crossing is to be made by tunnelling, in a location south of the rail-bridge over the B5282, Arnside. This location has been selected on the basis of consultations with both the Environment Agency and Network Rail. A perpendicular crossing can be made here which will avoid the foreshore; the Kent Channel and the old railway embankment. Safe access to the construction sites on both sides of the crossing can be maintained.

In Arnside, the pipeline route is constrained by the location of the pipeline / railway crossing and the designation of the foreshore as a Site of Special Scientific Interest; candidate Special Area of Conservation; etc.

The only viable route for the pipe from the railway crossing location, to Ash Meadow, is along Station Road and along the Promenade. The use of the foreshore as an alternative to the Promenade has been considered in principle only and is not proposed for environmental reasons, as follows:

The foreshore is within the Morecambe Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest; is within a candidate Special Area of Conservation; is within a Special Protection Area and is within a RAMSAR site. Approval to carry out permitted development in areas of such designation will only be given by the relevant authorities if no other practicable alternative is available.

As the Government’s advisor on nature conservation, English Nature is responsible for dealing with any consultation to ensure that sites are protected and appropriately managed. Discussions between United Utilities and English Nature have taken place and English Nature have indicated that they would not endorse a pipe route in the foreshore, parallel to the Promenade.

According to these environmental considerations it has not been appropriate to undertake a detailed engineering comparison between Promenade and foreshore pipeline routes. However, it should be acknowledged that if the environmental constraints were not applied, it is unlikely that any such study would favour a foreshore route, according to technical, economic and operational considerations, including the following:

The pipe laying in the Promenade should be completed in under three months in the off-peak season. Laying the same pipe in the foreshore could take nine to ten months. This is due both to the more difficult working conditions that would be encountered and the fact that progress could only be made at low tide during permitted working hours. Disruption to traffic on the Promenade during that period could not be avoided due to the need to remove construction equipment from the foreshore at the approach of high tide and the need to service construction activities. Whether the pipeline were to be layed in the foreshore or the Promenade, disturbance would result but traffic flow would be maintained. It is accepted that this disturbance might be lower on a daily basis with a foreshore route, but the duration of that disturbance would be significantly greater.

It is considered that the potential for impact on the local economy as a result of nine to ten months construction on the foreshore would be greater than the low impact that might result from two to three months work in the Promenade restricted to the winter period.

UU has a legal obligation to compensate local businesses that demonstrate loss of profit during construction periods. A longer construction period including the summer months would increase exposure in this respect.

Whilst no detailed cost comparison has been carried out, it stands to reason that it would be several times more expensive to lay the pipeline in the foreshore than in the Promenade, due the specialist nature of the work and the increased duration.

From United Utilities’ Operations point of view, it would not be desirable to locate a rising main in a tidal foreshore where an alternative route exists.

Traffic Management Plan

In order to minimise disruption whilst pipe laying activities and work in Ashmeadow are completed, a Traffic Management Plan is being developed. The Traffic Management Plan will maintain access for pedestrians; for deliveries, for local residents to their properties; for the emergency services and those with relevant special needs. The traffic Management Plan is likely to be based upon the following:

Station Road is very narrow and for safety reasons it will have to be closed to public traffic whilst work is completed. For this period (anticipated November 2004 to December 2004), traffic will be diverted along the Black Dyke access.

There would be a two-week stoppage for Christmas 2005.

The Promenade is much wider than Station Road. Whilst work is completed from Ash Meadow to the corner of Station Road traffic flow will be maintained, for instance by the use of traffic lights. It is anticipated that this work would completed between January and March 2005.

From the railway crossing, the pipeline will be routed through the fields to the south of the B5282. Two road crossings will then be required to transfer the pipe into the South Sandside railway cutting. Traffic lights will control traffic flow in the immediate area whilst these crossings are completed.

The pipeline will terminate at the existing Sandside Pumping Station from where an existing pipeline will deliver flows to Milnthorpe WwTW. New pumps will be required at Sandside to accommodate the increase in flow.

Conclusion

The proposed scheme to transfer wastewater flows from Amside to Milnthorpe for treatment is based upon a transfer pumping station in the comer of the grounds ofAshmeadow; a pipeline route which avoids designated areas; the re-use of existing assets where possible and the development of the existing operational WwTW at Milnthorpe.

United Utilities has given careful consideration to alternatives and has liased with the relevant bodies charged with protecting public and environmental interests. The proposed scheme will deliver the environmental improvements required by Legislation with the minimum long term impact on the area as a whole.

United Utilities acknowledges that construction of the proposed scheme will cause some disruption and will continue in its endeavours to minimise this through careful planning and local liaison.