Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 13 June 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Item 10(1) – 17/03489/FUL – Sabre House, Bath Road, Midgham (page three, bullet point two, first sentence):

·         Mr Russell presented two pieces of media to the Committee (Officers confirmed that the media had been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution).

Item 10(1) – 17/03489/FUL – Sabre House, Bath Road, Midgham (page three, bullet point three, first sentence):

·         The second media was an audio recording of two of Mr Russell’s neighbours standing next to his fence with equipment that he stated was a pressure washer.

Item 10(1) – 17/03489/FUL – Sabre House, Bath Road, Midgham (page four, fourth paragraph):

·         Finally Councillor Bridgman asked if, when taking the video, the east side roller-shutter door had been open and Mr Russell confirmed that it had been.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), and reported that, as his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter other than to speak as the applicant.

All Committee Members declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/00628/FULD in respect of a Section 73 application for the variation of Condition 9 – Treatment Plan and removal of Condition 12 – Minimise the effects of dust, of planning permission reference 17/00883/FULD (to erect 2 no. detached 4-bed houses and one pair of semi-detached 3-bed houses).

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nicholas Bundy, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Bundy in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He sought to address the point of concern for the Parish Council in relation to the management of foul sewage. An original condition of approval for application 17/00883/FULD was to submit a package treatment plant to service the development which he felt satisfied all concerned parties. However, consultation responses on this from the Environment Agency, Thames Water, Building Regulations and Network Rail did not support the package treatment plant.

·                    Mr Bundy explained that contamination would not be an issue and surface water would not be discharged into the foul system. The proposed new condition would instead implement a self-contained Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) to deal with surface water run-off.

·                    No objections had been raised in the consultation responses to this application for the revised condition from the Environment Agency, Thames Water, Building Regulations and Network Rail, subject to certain conditions and stipulations.

·                    Network Rail did not object on the understanding that no soakaway would be constructed within 20 metres of their assets. This included a sub-station.

·                    The revised Condition 9 offered the most practical solution to the management of foul water drainage and was in line with the views of Thames Water.

Councillor Alan Macro queried the removal of the voided floors. Mr Bundy confirmed these had been removed as the voids were relatively shallow. However, the report stated that this was acceptable as long as the finished floor levels were set as per the layout drawing and the floor bund was in place. He added that practical measures would be put in place to avoid surface water flooding.

A representative of Woolhampton Parish Council wished to address the Committee to explain their objection, but he was not permitted to do so as no request to speak had been received from the Parish. However, the Parish Council’s objection was noted within the report.

Councillor Graham Bridgman continued with the topic of the voided floors and noted that condition eight (Sustainable Drainage Measures) contained a reference (point (i)) to the inclusion of elevated floors with voids. He questioned this considering the point made by Mr Bundy that these had been removed. Stuart Clark stated that this specific point was no longer relevant and the reference should be removed from the condition.

Councillor Bridgman noted a point made by the Drainage Officer which strongly suggested that the applicant should be required to inform future purchasers of each property that it was imperative that ponds/swales should be retained and maintained throughout the lifetime of the properties as part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.(1)

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was the applicant for the planning application. As his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter other than to speak as the applicant).

(All Committee Members declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the applicant was known to them as a fellow Councillor and Committee Member. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Metcalfe left the Committee at 6.56pm but remained in the room to speak as the applicant).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/00562/COMIND in respect of the proposed realignment of the farm drive along with associated landscaping and use of part of the site for D2 (outdoor sports and recreation) use for up to 250 days per annum.

Simon Till, Senior Planning Officer, opened his introduction to the report by referring Members to the update report. This explained that the Environment Agency (EA) and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted by the applicant and had identified inadequacies with the level of information it contained. In light of these objections, the Officer Recommendation had been altered to one of refusal for the reason outlined in the update report and summarised in the following paragraph.

Mr Till explained that the site was located entirely within Flood Zone 2 and a substantial part of the site was located in Flood Zone 3. Flooding was therefore a concern and the EA objection stated that the FRA failed to demonstrate that the raised road would not impede flood flow and that the proposed culverts would allow flood water to flow beneath the elevated road. The EA had therefore requested further information to confirm that an adequate strategy was in place. However, no further information had been forthcoming from the applicant to address these concerns.

Mr Till concluded his introduction by explaining that while weight had been given to the community benefit this application would achieve, the concerns of the EA together with the fact that this was in a flood risk area meant that the application was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Graham Rolfe, Parish Council representative, and Councillor Tim Metcalfe, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Rolfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    While the Parish Council in principle accepted the reasoning behind this application, they had objections. This included flooding (as already referred to) but their concerns went beyond flooding.

·                    They would not object to the realignment of the farm drive if issues could be addressed. This part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.(2)

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe rejoined the meeting at 8.09pm).

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area.

The 18 July 2018 was agreed for site visits if necessary. This was in advance of the Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 25 July 2018.