Last updated 05:36, Friday, 19 September 2008

The small rural Borders community of Nicholforest is used to standing up for itself and fighting its corner – they’ve had centuries of practice in the ‘Debatable Lands’.

Now they are celebrating after taking on a waste disposal company and a government agency, just for good measure.

Kilmarnock-based Digit Site Services was granted permission by the Environment Agency to dispose of sewage over a 78-hectare chunk of private forestry.

The work was allowed after the Environment Agency carried out a “desktop risk assessment” of the scheme.

But that permission was dramatically scrapped by the agency after it carried out extensive on-site surveys this week following concerted pressure by residents and local politicians.

The agency said the change of mind about the scheme came as a result of “following a review of its potential risk to the environment”.

Digit were not available to comment on the news that the disposal scheme had been halted.

Last week, managing director Tommy Hogg said the Cumbrian site should generate only three to four extra lorry movements at the forest a day.

He added: “This isn’t sewage disposal. We’re using sewage sludge as fertiliser as part of tree-felling and planting.”

He told The Cumberland News: “We don’t have an awful lot more to add than we have already said.”

The plantation is in Kershope Forest, immediately north of the B6318 between Catlowdy and Roadhead.

The company had asked permission to store and spread sewage sludge in the forest. It was to be poured into trenches, then covered with topsoil. It said ‘buffer zones’ would protect streams, springs, wells and private water supplies.

But many locals couldn’t understand how the firm was granted permission before any on-site examination was carried out.

They argued that becks and waterways spring up in the area almost instantly as a result of heavy rain and that it is almost impossible to chart where they might occur.

The residents pointed to three main reasons for their reluctance to accept Digit’s reassurances over the project.

They claimed there was no prior warning or consultation before the diggers moved in.

Digit ran a similar scheme to dispose of treated waste at Hewisbridge, near Newcastleton, in the Scottish Borders three years ago. That brought complaints about pollution, smells and heavy lorries, and prompted a petition to the Scottish Parliament.

And Digit was also fined £7,500 in October last year after pleading guilty at Ayr Sheriff Court to disposing of untreated waste.

Nicholforest residents only discovered the latest project by chance when they noticed heavy machinery moving into the forest.

Since then, representatives of the parish council have met representatives of the company and the Environment Agency to voice their fears.

And more than 200 people turned up at a public meeting last week to protest at the project.

Their biggest fear was that anything that is dumped in the area could leach into the nearby watercourses, affecting springs that supply water to nearby homes, and ponds and streams that are used by sheep and cattle.

Kate Ireland was especially concerned. She lives closest to the planned site and is one of many who depends on a spring for her water supply.

She said: “It is not only the Environment Agency, but we the public who need cast-iron guarantees that we will not be put at risk.

“We were deeply worried about this operation taking place. Our biggest concern was for residents whose homes are supplied by spring water. There are 35 properties round here supplied like that.

“They say there are buffer zones to stop overspill, but these springs need to recharge from somewhere and we don’t know where it is from.

“Buffer zones are totally inadequate. It beggars belief.

“Many of us have lived and farmed in this area all of our lives. We know a great deal about land drainage, surface water run-off and the level of the water table.

“We could be faced with our water supplies being rendered useless for many years to come as a result of the proposed operation and it would be wrong to expect the local community to pick up the pieces.

“It is no use shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.”

Jack Sisson, chairman of Nicholforest parish council, said: “Since the original meeting with us, the company has said different things and we just don’t believe them.”

Vet Charlie Foster, of Border Vets, Longtown, was concerned that any run-off could carry food-poisoning bugs found in faeces, such as salmonella, campylobacter and e-coli which could be picked up by sheep and cattle.

He said: “I know that area and there are both suckling cows and sheep all around there. Rainfall is very high and streams and rivers come up very fast after any rainfall.

“The worry is that you have stuff sitting on the surface or close to it, but where is it running off to?

“It has yet to be clarified what exactly the waste is and what level of treatment it has received.”

Councillor Ray Bloxham, Carlisle city council’s environment portfolio holder, chaired last week’s meeting.

He said he was amazed by the situation, adding: “It is an absolute disgrace.

“The government is saying that you should consult with the people, but here part of the government can give authority without any risk-assessment and with no idea of the area being affected.

“The law says they can grant an exemption certificate to them as long as they agree to abide by certain guidelines.

“They should be consulting with people in the first instance.

“There are an awful lot of people in the area who get their water from the springs and the farmers’ stock use streams, rivers and ponds in the area.

“Apart from the effect it could have through human consumption, we could have more foot and mouth, bluetongue or anything.

“And what affect will it have on local wildlife?”

Penrith and Borders MP David MacLean also backed the opposition to the scheme.

He said the company had not shown that the process provided the necessary “ecological improvement” and claimed it was trying to use a loophole in the regulations.

He explained: “There are strict rules for sewage to be spread on agricultural land, but on brownfield sites it can be dug in to reclaim old factory land, for example.

“But this falls in between the two and the company has tried to treat the forest like derelict land.”

He said the Environment Agency had made the right decision, although it should have called a public meeting earlier.

He added: “The agency carried out computer mapping, but what they did not know was that they still have wells up there and get their water from the springs.

“I don’t think you can demand an on-site survey on every occasion, but they should have had the sense to know about something like this.”

Locals had a hint of victory on Wednesday when the Environment Agency halted the digging and called in two hydro-geologists to examine the site, along with senior environmental officer Carol Romero, who is based at Penrith.

She said that waste disposal regulations recognise that there are activities where using waste can be useful.

The paragraph 8A exemption of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, allows the storage and spreading of sludge on “land for agricultural benefit or ecological improvement”.

But Mrs Romero stressed: “Whatever is done with the waste, it cannot endanger human health or put at risk water, soil, plants or animals.

“Companies have to notify us of their intentions to follow the terms and conditions.

“We assess them – we do not take them on face value.

“We have a complex computer system with ground water flows and bore holes mapped on it and we carry out a desk-top risk-assessment exercise.

“We look at local water courses and bore holes and if we believe they can meet the exemptions, we are obliged to register them.

“If new information comes to light, we can de-register.

“Every sewage works in the country produces sewage sludge and more than 50 per cent of it goes onto farmland, or forest land or brownfield sites.”

When a company is allowed to spread sewage, the process is regularly monitored by the aAgency.

Mrs Romero said the agency had decided to visit the site as a result of the concerns expressed by local residents. She said they had mentioned private water springs that had not been identified by the agency and added: “They say the area is criss-crossed with streams that do not show up on maps.

“In the right circumstances, sewage sludge can be spread on land to provide benefit, but it must be done without risk to human health or the environment.

“We have acted swiftly in this case in light of new information we received and have now de-registered the company’s waste exemption.

“We hope this action will reassure local residents that we take their concerns seriously and that protecting human health and the environment is always our top priority.

“It is important to note that no sewage sludge has been transported to or spread on this site.”

The dispute over disposal of sewage at Nicholforest follows complaints earlier this year about human waste being spread on farmland at Plumbland and Aspatria.

Residents were sickened by the smell around Aspatria, Prospect and Oughterside which was caused by the legal spreading of human waste on agricultural land.

That sludge was supplied from the United Utilities plant at Siddick, Workington, to loading contractor Richard Miller, of Arkelby Hall, near Aspatria.

Mr Miller said: “Everything is above board and legal.”

Helen Wilson, spokeswoman for United Utilities said the practice of spreading such waste had gone on for decades and was strictly regulated.

She added that the waste that United Utilities and other water companies passed on free of charge for disposal was treated to different levels and like any fertiliser had to be used properly.

Sludge application is fully regulated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and soil-testing is part of United’s service to make sure that the right amount is applied at the right times.

Helen Wilson said that spreading the material could cause smells, though the water company provided advice on how to keep them to a minimum.

“It is routinely done. It is not human sewage – it has been through a treatment process,” she explained.

“It is full of nutrients and one of the best uses is to put it back onto land.

“We produce more of it than ever these days because we clean the water to higher standards than before.”