Anyone know what this new building's for? (CET plant at Reading)

[lejog]

Aah, I was fooled by the plan I was looking at (http://documents.reading.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00231192.pdf) showing a temporary access point at 58920 as 139 Cardiff Road, when as you say it appears it was actually at 193 Cardiff Rd. You may be right about the new building site being at 58700. However Google Maps shows the new retaining wall stretching from 137 to 149 Cardiff Rd and there is also structure marked on the plan at 58660 at 147-149 Cardiff Rd, which is shown to be a retaining wall in the detailed plan (http://documents.reading.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00231210.pdf , Sheet 2 of 5, on page 3!). However the depot plan certainly don't show a building in that area at all or even a retaining wall of the size built, so I think the conclusion that the development is not in accordance with the 2010 prior approval stands.

 

[Stargazer99]

Thanks for all the replies - yes, this building really does appear to be outside the scope of any submitted plans, so it could be violating planning law. Have looked further along Cardiff Road, and there is a building behind 191-193 called the East Siding Cleaners Accommodation with a small 'water storage' building next to it.

I wonder if there are any insiders around (or contributors that knows an insider) that know the story behind the new construction?

 

[Stargazer99]

We have an answer from the council's planning team - it's a CET plant room:

"The investigation into the planning aspects of your complaint has established that the structure in question is a CET (contained effluent transport) plant room - i.e. it is where they remove and process effluent from toilets etc. on the trains. Network Rail insist that the structure qualifies as permitted development under Part 8, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) - “Development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail” and claim there is a High Court judgement which supports this."

Although the photo apparently shows space for windows, these have since been covered with cladding, so the building now appears windowless. We believe it is at least 200 metres east of where the CET plant room was shown on the original plans submitted to Reading Borough Council.

The council's enforcement team are now investigating Network Rail's claim. It may indeed be permitted development, but since this affects the amenity of local residents should this have gone through the prior notification process?

On a separate note - the residents' long-standing campaign to reduce noise from the depot is finally getting some action: http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/train-bosses-could-prosecuted-over-13906340

 

[lejog]

So it seems that Part 8 raises its ugly head.

I'm afraid permitted development means that no permission or approval is required, whatever the effect on residents. It would appear that Network Rail are claiming a wider meaning of "required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail" than previously, why did they previously apply for prior approval for the work when they are now claiming its permitted development?

Really this is a matter for the council and its legal opinion, if they choose to seek this. All I can point out is that Part 8 excludes from permitted development any building used for industrial processing and you say the building is used for processing effluent (it certainly looks rather large to be just housing a pump to the sewage system).

 

[swt_passenger]

Although the photo apparently shows space for windows, these have since been covered with cladding, so the building now appears windowless. We believe it is at least 200 metres east of where the CET plant room was shown on the original plans submitted to Reading Borough Council.

I don't think it's a resiting of an earlier plant room. There are already buildings at the original site, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[lejog]

I don't think it's a resiting of an earlier plant room. There are already buildings at the original site, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I have to agree with Stargazer99 that the building was not shown on the original plans. Anyway, its a moot point now as Network Rail are claiming the building is permitted development, not that it has prior approval from the original plans.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think we might be at cross purposes. What I'm trying to say is that if this is another CET plant it must be a third one, additional to the two that are already installed as per the earlier drawings. If the east plant wasn't installed as drawn, near to Cow Lane, then how have they been dealing with all the existing Turbo fleet up until now?

 

[Howezy_21]

I do believe this BBC article puts this thread to rest, with the building being a CET plant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-42049943

Reading rail depot building 'will treat train toilet waste'

 

[lejog]

It's interesting that Network Rail are now not commenting on the use of the building and its the residents that are reported to be claiming its a CET plant. I sense the hand of a Network Rail Public Relations officer, trying to minimise bad publicity.

People fear they will endure the smell of sewage from a rail depot extraction plant "100 yards" from their homes.

Residents in Cardiff Road, Reading, claim a new building on the site will extract sewage from train toilets.

Reading Borough Council has queried whether Network Rail, which has not commented on the building's use, had permission to construct it.

Rail bosses, issued with a noise abatement notice on the site, say the building is within "permitted rights".

Great Western Railway (GWR) and Network Rail directors face prosecution if they fail to comply with the legal noise abatement notice, issued last week, within six months.

Jonathan Dart, chairman of the Bell Tower Community Association, said residents found out about the sewage extraction use after the noise complaints were made.

'Caught by surprise'
When asked what the latest concerns of neighbours were, Mr Dart added: "It's going to be smell and noise.

"We are not sure actually once they have treated this waste, how they are going to get it out."

Deputy council leader Tony Page said the local authority was "caught some what by surprise" by the effluent treatment development.

Great Western Railway bosses said buildings on railway land fell under "permitted development rights".

A Network Rail spokesperson added the train operator was "not in a position to comment" while it considered its "legal options" over the effluent extraction plant.

 

[swt_passenger]

There must be modern rail CET plants alongside stabling sidings and near local housing all over the country. They'll presumably be wasting their time using noise and smell as grounds for objection.

Instead of complaining that they don't know how the plant will deal with the waste, why not just consider that it might conceivably be in exactly the same way as the existing plants?

 

[mark-h]

Do CET emptying facilities "treat" the waste from the tanks on site? I would have thought it easier (and cheaper) to pump it into the municipal sewage system.

That is not to say that there may be noise and smells from the facility although since it is indoors that may not be too much of an issue.

 

[Elecman]

Most CET systems I’ve worked with merely suck the contents out of the train tanks and pump it straight into the water authorities main drains with additional flush water to ensure the high solids content waste is flushed away without blocking the sewerage pipes

 

[lejog]

There must be modern rail CET plants alongside stabling sidings and near local housing all over the country. They'll presumably be wasting their time using noise and smell as grounds for objection.

Instead of complaining that they don't know how the plant will deal with the waste, why not just consider that it might conceivably be in exactly the same way as the existing plants?

Are CET plants this size common? I certainly don't pretend to be an expert, but I thought they usually are a compact pumping system which pumps straight to the public sewer, looking like this example I found via google.

 

[swt_passenger]

Never really thought about the practical detail. But it possibly depends on overall capacity required. Possibly better to compare with what has been provided at a contemporary large new depot built such as Three Bridges or Hornsey Thameslink depots.

 

[lejog]

I'm still not sure that comparison with other sites is of great relevance. If Network Rail are correct in their claim that the building is permitted development, then residents can complain as much as they like, they have no basis for complaint under planning laws. If prior approval is required then the council can order relocation if the building breaches planning guidelines, but this will very much depend both on the individual circumstances (size of building, distances from houses, overlooking etc) and on local planning policies which still vary from area to area.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm still not sure that comparison with other sites is of great relevance. If Network Rail are correct in their claim that the building is permitted development, then residents can complain as much as they like, they have no basis for complaint under planning laws. If prior approval is required then the council can order relocation if the building breaches planning guidelines, but this will very much depend both on the individual circumstances (size of building, distances from houses, overlooking etc) and on local planning policies which still vary from area to area.

I don't disagree with the planning points, the purpose of suggesting comparison with other sites was to see if similar sized shed like buildings are typically associated with the overall CET infrastructure at a similar density of sidings. I thought from your post #43 you were considering that all you should need is the trackside modules as shown in the photo, connected directly into the local public infrastructure.

 

[lejog]

No I was not suggesting that trackside modules were all that was required in this case, I was questioning your statement implying large buildings were commonplace around the country:

There must be modern rail CET plants alongside stabling sidings and near local housing all over the country

Are CET plants this size common? I certainly don't pretend to be an expert, but I thought they usually are a compact pumping system

 

[Dr A.Johnston]

Building was on local TV new the other day, the building is for recycling slurry from the train toilets emptied in the depot

 

[swt_passenger]

Building was on local TV new the other day, the building is for recycling slurry from the train toilets emptied in the depot

That's what post #38 above reported on Monday, which is basically what triggered off the following discussion about whether any treatment is actually done.

It could be BBC exaggeration, not necessarily factual...

 

[MarkyT]

I found an article about Airquick, who supply CET systems as well as other depot systems:
http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/yard/airquick2/

The article includes an image of pumps and macerators, claimed to be in a building at Reading depot:
http://www.railway-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/10/CET-pumps-and-macerators.jpg

This is no doubt a different (and already complete!) building within the long straggling depot complex, but nevertheless illustrates the type of equipment that may also be housed in the new one.

I speculate some effluent storage tanks might also be included, so the waste can be metered out gradually into the public sewage system over time rather than all being discharged immediately on extraction from the trains as they come onto the depot within a fairly short window in late evening.

 

[swt_passenger]

I speculate some effluent storage tanks might also be included, so the waste can be metered out gradually into the public sewage system over time rather than all being discharged immediately on extraction from the trains as they come onto the depot within a fairly short window in late evening.

All makes sense doesn't it. So probably not really a 'treatment plant' in the full meaning of those words...

 

[Tio Terry]

Some time ago there was a proposal to relocate some equipment (wheel lathe?) from Old Oak Common to Reading because of the part closure of OOC for HS2. I don't know if this is still the case, it was some time ago now.

 

[Stargazer99]

There was a prior notification granted in 2014 for a wheel lathe facility, which would have been an extension on to the Cow Lane depot: http://planning.reading.gov.uk/fastweb_PL/detail.asp?AltRef=141772. I don't know if it has actually been built but would think this is likely.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The building that is in dispute is mean’t to be a CET plant room. This rather huge structure seems to have been constructed for the additional pumping equipment that is required for “extracting” the sleeping cars. I can’t think much processing goes on there, just pumping it forward from the servicing road ejectors to the main sewer, maybe via a macerator.

The new lathe at Reading is already in but the destination of the one at the Oak isn’t known to me. It’s NR’s call where it goes next.

 

[Stargazer99]

A follow-on from this thread:
Now that we have a CET plant room, presumably operational by now, this presumably means the sidings are ready to accommodate the new electric units that will serve many of the Great Western local services. Does this mean we are on the point of having mostly electric units stabled in those sidings now (I believe the new rolling stock is arriving imminently)?

 

[Occtraveller]

A follow-on from this thread:
Now that we have a CET plant room, presumably operational by now, this presumably means the sidings are ready to accommodate the new electric units that will serve many of the Great Western local services. Does this mean we are on the point of having mostly electric units stabled in those sidings now (I believe the new rolling stock is arriving imminently)?

387s were stabling there when I passed at about 2200 on Thursday 28th. They have been running in service since start of play on the 28th.