From: "Ian and Philippa McMurdo" <iandp.mcmurdo@virgin.net>
To: <development.control@southlakeland.gov.uk>
Subject: Kendal Auction Mart relocation
Date: 30 August 2009 14:15

I am broadly in favour of the relocation plan for the Auction Mart and can see many advantages in what has been proposed but am very concerned over the effluent arrangements proposed for the site.

The plan as it stands is to remove the solids, denitrify the effluent, pass through a settlement pond before discharging the effluent via a reed bed to a tributary of Stainton Beck and from there on to the River Bela.

Stainton Beck is currently the only water course in Cumbria that I know where salmon and sea trout are actually increasing as witnessed by their spawning redds. This bucking the trend of a slow national decline is to due to the inception of a fish pass on the Bela at the Heron Corn Mill that allowed access to migratory fish. The recovery of these stocks are one of the very few good news stories from South Lakeland's water courses.

Perhaps more importantly, the Bela system is a stronghold of the native white clawed crayfish a species that has suffered terribly due to the spread of the alien signal crayfish.

To contemplate adding effluent to such a sensitive receptor as the Bela system appears a very retrograde step and one that will always act as the Achilles heel of the development and its planned expansion. A much better solution would be to site the Mart in an area where the effluent can be treated safely by professional operators such as United Utilities. The fact that the proposed site has access only to the already overloaded Crooklands sewer and not the Milnthorpe treatment plant indicates to me that the operators have chosen the wrong location and the poor arrangements planned for the effluent are not a suitably robust  alternative.

The River Bela already suffers badly from diffuse agricultural pollution; any sunlight in Springtime sets of a massive algal bloom that coats the river bed and smothers the rannunculus beds. Adding yet another pollution source to the water course would be irresponsible. The Environment Agency may not comment on this aspect of the plan as no application to discharge to surface waters has been made. I would urge the planners not to grant outline planning permission until the effluent issues have been thoroughly evaluated. The scheme as detailed in the proposal are the cheapest solution to the effluent problem, I would prefer to see a closed effluent treatment system where the treated effluent can be recycled or pumped to a less ecologically sensitive location such as the canal. This is only one alternative but to my mind, is a massive improvement of the plan in the application.

Thank you for offering me the opportunity to express my concerns, I hope you may take them into account.

                               Ian McMurdo
                               South View,
                               Levens
                               Kendal
                               LA8 8PB