Sue, I think the below sums this matter up very succinctly, as you will see from the dates of when these two emails below from the
Car Wash Association were sent to DDC, they have been aware of the matter for a very long time. For the public record, DDC answered the first email with a blah-blah-blah saying it's nothing to do with us, Guv! , twittering on about that the old petrol tanks on the site meant to hold the hazardous toxic waste etc., as far as I am aware they never answered the Car Wash Association's second email and that was over a year ago.
The blame for all this sits very firmly at the feet of DDC's officers and the elected councillors that granted planning permission incorrectly for a car wash on the Ramyar Car Wash site. If DDC has chosen to ignore the Car Wash Association highly regarded expert, Alexander Russell, our leading environmental law Solicitors, who led the case against DDC regarding China Gateway, the highly damning SWECO acoustics report and also what we’ve reported to them following the highly damning Socotec hazardous waste report - Do you really think they are going to talk to me?
It is not me that is bringing down Dover in the eyes of the world, it is DDC. Really not very good PR for Dover and it’s all of DDC's own making. The crazy thing is it’s in their hands to change the narrative, all they have to do is regulate the site to the planning conditions they themselves imposed and have the car wash put in a whole new drainage system that meets legal requirements, or just close the car wash site down, and let Mr Karim relocate to a site that meets the legal requirements for a Hand Car Wash business.
=================
From:
Alexander Russell
Sent:
30 July 2020 13:03
To: Lesley Jarvis <Lesley.Jarvis@DOVER.GOV.UK>;
Cc: Nadeem Aziz <Nadeem.Aziz@DOVER.GOV.UK>; Diane Croucher <Diane.Croucher@DOVER.GOV.UK>; Paul Neagle <Paul.Neagle@DOVER.GOV.UK>; Sue carr <Sue.Carr@DOVER.GOV.UK>; Philip Milner <Philip.Milner@DOVER.GOV.UK>
Subject: RE: Non-Compliant Hand Car Washes in Dover- Suspected Environmental and Planning Violations
Dear Ms. Jarvis
Non-Compliant Hand Car Wash in Dover- Suspected Environmental and Planning Violations
Thank you for your helpful e-mail of 21 July in connection with the above matter on which we would comment as follows:
Drainage
1. The Council’s statement: In your second paragraph you mention that the Council’s officers had reported to Members at the Planning Committee meeting that the site in question had its own drainage system. For this reason, no drainage conditions were attached to the permission that was subsequently issued for the site to be used as a car wash.
2. The reality: I trust that you can see from the photographic evidence attached in this and previous e-mails that this advice was manifestly incorrect. Car wash effluent containing detergent and other cleaning materials is being discharged directly onto porous tarmac and is flowing across the site down to a storm water ‘Aco’ drain on the site boundary. Under all existing and previous regulations governing the discharge of trade effluent, it is strictly prohibited to discharge such drainage into storm water drains. It can be seen in the photos that this regulation is being openly flouted. The Council have a direct responsibility for this breach having created the conditions allowing such illegal such discharge through its own negligence when issuing planning permission based on incorrect information at the planning stage.
3. Council responsibility: It is regrettable that the Council appears content to allow this continuing breach, which is of the Council’s own making, to continue unchecked. There can be no excuse for this illegal discharge into the wrong drainage system particularly in a town centre as is the case here where access to a foul water sewer must lie within easy reach. drainage system Furthermore when the matter has repeatedly been brought to your attention you resort to an attempt to pass the problem on to the Environmental Protection Team and Southern Water for them to clear up the mess of the Council’s making in the first instance. You will no doubt be interested to learn what both these bodies make of this situation once they have been informed of the above facts and of the Council’s apparent unwillingness to rectify this fault of its own making.
Environmental Protection Matters
You state in your e-mail that “The Environmental Protection team have not witnessed anything under their own delegated legislation where action could be taken.” It is difficult to believe that this would be the considered opinion of any environmental Officer had they been shown the attached photos of trade effluent and detergent flowing openly across porous tarmac into a storm water drain. Perhaps you could kindly confirm to us that this photographic evidence was shared with them when they were consulted on this matter.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
We are grateful to you for drawing our attention to the National Planning Policy Framework (last updated on 19 June 2019) that sets out the government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Having reviewed the Policy in some detail, we felt it appropriate to draw the Council’s attention to a number of areas that relate to the situation at this car wash in Maison Dieu Road where it would appear that adherence to the NPPF policies is unfortunately lacking.
We have summarised below the main points that were noted:
NPPF Clause 43. “The right information is crucial to good decision-making, particularly where formal assessments are required (such as Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats Regulations assessment and flood risk assessment) “.
Car Wash Association comment: We have dealt with the is point earlier in this e-mail in connection with the issuance of Planning Permission having been made that relied on incorrect information about drainage that was gathered by the Council itself.
NPPF Enforcement – Clause 58: “Effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system”
Car Wash Association comment: The Council’s attempt to ‘pass the parcel’ to the Environmental Protection Team and Southern Water for them to clear up the mess of its own creation appears to fly in the face of this regulation.
NPPF 9. Promoting sustainable transport - Clause 102. “Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so that:……. d) the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and considered – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains…”
Car Wash Association comment: Responsibility for environmental matters at the planning stage clearly lies with the Council who should not allow situations to arise where breaches of these regulations then have to be dealt with by other entities.
NPPF Clause 127. “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: …. f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience”
Car Wash Association comment: It would appear that insufficient care and attention was paid to this regulation at the planning stage in connection with the disturbance to the amenity and the right to peaceful enjoyment of the adjacent Castle Hill House that directly overlooks the car wash in question whose owners have been corresponding with you already on this matter. ,
NPPF Clause 128. “Design quality should be considered throughout the evolution and assessment of individual proposals. Early discussion between applicants, the local planning authority and local community about the design and style of emerging schemes is important for clarifying expectations and reconciling local and commercial interests. Applicants should work closely with those affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community”
Car Wash Association comment: The comments that you have received from of owners of Castle Hill House have dealt with this principle at considerable length already….but to no avail it would appear which is regrettable and we will be seeking the views of your local MP on the matter.
NPPF Clause 130. “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. Local planning authorities should also seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme (for example through changes to approved details such as the materials used)”
Car Wash Association comment: What should be added to the above is the fundamental principle that unauthorised changes or failures to adhere to planning conditions – as is manifestly and repeatedly the case on this site – should not be allowed to persist.
15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment NPPF Clause 170. “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:….. e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability“
Car Wash Association comment: Illegal discharge of trade effluent into storm water drains as is occurring at this site is in direct contravention of the above principle.
NPPF Clause 180. “Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life”
Car Wash Association comment: The owners of the adjacent Castle Hill House that directly overlooks the car wash have been very adversely affected by this site and have provided the Council with ample written, photographic and sound evidence of these problems.
NPPF Considering potential impacts Clause 194. “Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional”
Car Wash Association comment: The Council will by now be fully aware as a result of the correspondence it has received from with the owners of the adjacent Castle Hill House that directly overlooks the car wash that this house is listed Grade 2*, a listing normally awarded to particularly important buildings of more than special interest.
NPPF ANNEX 2 – GLOSSARY: Environmental impact assessment: A procedure to be followed for certain types of project to ensure that decisions are made in full knowledge of any likely significant effects 67 on the environment.
Conclusions:
• It is the CWA’s considered opinion that responsibility in this matter lies directly with the Local Authority as a result of its apparent failure to adhere to fundamental planning principles prior to granting planning permission to this car wash. The site is clearly unsuitable from the point of view of local amenity, disturbance to neighbours and for a variety of environmental reasons as well.
• Considerable time has now been expended in correspondence about this matter both by yourselves, the owners of Castle Hill House and the Car Wash Association which could have been put to much better use if the Council had carried out a full investigation in the first instance.
• We trust that instead of further time needlessly being consumed in additional lengthy correspondence, the Council will now adopt a pragmatic and practical course by conducting a fresh investigation into this matter - but starting from the premise that it has direct responsibility to resolve the problem instead of seeking to pass the matter on to other entities. This site is making the life of the owners of Castle Hill House a daily misery and in addition to this there is damage that is being caused by the illegal discharge of trade effluent both to the environment, local water courses and to the water table by seepage through the tarmac.
We trust that you will accept that The Car Association’s interest in this matter is entirely objective and in good faith and we trust that both we and the owners of Castle Hill House can look forward to real progress being made as a matter of urgency.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander Russell
Alexander Russell
Director of Strategy
The Car Wash Association
===============================
From:
Alexander Russell
Date: Sun,
Aug 30, 2020 at 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: Non-Compliant Hand Car Washes in Dover- Suspected Environmental and Planning Violations
To: Sue carr <Sue.Carr@dover.gov.uk>
Dear Ms. Carr,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 28th August and for the helpful information that it contains, all of which is already quite familiar to us as a trade association.
We would comment as follows on the points contained in your e-mail.
• We have to take issue with your comment in the second paragraph: “ I note that your request is that the District Council accept responsibility for environmental issues and any problems caused to neighbours by the car wash site”. Our argument all along has not been that the Council accept responsibility for environmental issues as we are well aware that these duties fall under the Environment Agency’s area of responsibility. Our contention is that the District Council accept full responsibility for its own failures in its duty of care which in this instance was to allow the hand car wash to begin operations inexplicably and in clear breach of the usual conditions that are required of any car wash in the UK under long-standing planning requirements.
• We are instead repeatedly told that this serious and evidence-backed complaint that is of a very public nature and which concerns the Local Authority’s own failures in the first place should be directed instead at the Environment Agency and the local water authority as if that were an end to the matter.
• On behalf of the Car Wash Association, I personally speak from 38 years of experience in building and operating 280 car washes across almost every District Council in the UK under the IMO/ARC brand. Not one of these 280 sites was allowed to begin operations until the local planning authority had satisfied itself that we had followed the standard planning conditions concerning – amongst other requirements - the provision of foul drainage and a non-permeable wash surface to prevent contamination of the subsoil and water courses.
• This unexplained failure is breathtakingly labelled in your letter as a mere ‘oversight’ a description which to this reader appears to be an attempt to minimise unaccountable negligence. This in turn must give rise to a host of further doubts about the competence and professionalism of the person issuing the planning permission.
• The extent of the issuing officer’s irresponsibility and complete failure to perform their duties competently is further compounded by that person’s acceptance of the explanation offered by the car wash that the petrol tanks, that were left in situ from when it had been a service station, would be utilised for the storage of the waste water. Did it not occur to that officer that petrol tanks must be hermetically sealed so as to avoid any danger of leakage into the ground and that they are therefore never fitted with any gravity drainage facility? The inappropriateness of using highly specialised petrol tanks for recycling trade effluent where these tanks are designed solely for the propose of storage of fuel alone must surely have occurred to the officer concerned?
• Furthermore how did the planning officer imagine, if these sealed petrol tanks were to be used by the car wash for the ‘storage of waste water’ , that they could be emptied and cleaned? Car washing always produces substantial quantities of sludge in addition to trade effluent that would soon have filled the tanks unless they are regularly emptied and cleaned. It must surely have occurred to the officer concerned that cleaning such a hermetically sealed tank would present some serious challenges which would then have led any rational thinker to question the suitability of such tanks for this purpose ?
• As though such indulgent interpretation of the normal planning requirements that always pertain to the installation of any car wash were not enough, this inexplicable failure was then further aggravated by there being no conditions imposed which required the use of these tanks.
o Why then were the tanks required as a condition of planning in the first place?
o Was this done in order to pay lip service to the normal planning regulations and in the hope that no-one would notice?
o Should the inexplicable and entirely illogical motivation behind such a negligent attitude by the planning officer not merit further serious internal investigation by the Council notwithstanding the passage of time since the event?
• The price of such abject failures in the duty of care that is expected by society of public servants is now being paid by the community at large. The local residents have to live with illegal daily pollution on a considerable scale - see attached photos of detergent-laden car wash effluent lying in the street above a clearly blocked storm drain into which such trade effluent must never be allowed to flow in the first place.
As a matter of public duty, the Car Wash Association, which represents some 4500 retailers in this country, cannot allow the matter to rest following your regrettably unsatisfactory response.
o We must once again make it clear that what we are asking for is remedial action by the District Council for its own failure dutifully to perform its statutory obligations with the appropriate level of care which society at large is entitled to expect.
o A little more empathy on the part of the Council and a show of willingness to assist in rectifying the problem would not have been out of place here instead of which there have only been attempts to brush off the complaints and pass the buck. Simple but determined enforcement action for example springs to mind.
o Furthermore all the parties concerned have received entirely unacceptable explanations that wilfully ignore the Council’s own failings which are minimised as a mere ‘oversight’ and seek to brush off this matter because it considers the issue to be the responsibility of another organisation. In other words the unforgivable attitude seems to be that clearing up this mess - which is of the Council’s making in the first place - must be done by others.
o The consequence of the Council’s failure to carry out its responsibilities dutifully is that the unfortunate residents living next to this car wash are daily subjected to the misery of abuse, pollution, noise and aggressive behaviour none of which would be happening if this car wash had been subjected to the normal planning requirements in the first place that would in all likelihood have made its being authorised in the first place impossible.
We will await your response in the hope that it will now finally address the underlying issues of the Council’s own responsibilities and failures in this matter before considering further whether to bring the issue to the attention of the Ombudsman as you suggest.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander Russell
Director of Strategy
The Car Wash Association