Agenda item

(Councillor Richard Crumly declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), by the virtue of the fact that he was present at that Thatcham Town Council meeting when the matter was considered. He reported that, he remained impartial and would consider the matter afresh this evening; therefore, as his interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he 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 17/03079/COMIND in respect of a flood alleviation scheme which comprised a series of strategically located bunds (earth embankments) in Dunstan Green and Siege Cross play area varying in height from 0.4m to 1m. The proposed works would also entail the erection of a 1 metre bund alongside the access track within allotments to the east of Dunstan Green and a section of bund on allotment land on the west of the allotment site. A bund of heights between 50cm and 80cm was proposed on land to the north west of Kennet School sports pitches with a shallow swale approximately 440m long along the perimeter of the Kennet School sports pitches to collect and convey water into storage basins with a 50cm depth in Siege Cross play area, allowing the water to drain at a controlled rate into the existing surface water sewer system. The scheme also included re-profiling a section of Harts Hill Road and excavation of a 50cm depth swale to divert water off the carriageway and into Dunstan Green.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Liz Wood, objector, Mr Iain Dunn (Thatcham Flood Forum), supporter, and Mr Brian Cafferkey  and Mrs Liz Allen, agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

Ms Liz Wood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         At the site meeting Officers had stated that the bund was outside the perimeter fence of the allotments but it was inside so that was a mistake;

·         The allotments near Dunstan Green had not been included in any written statements and no notices had been displayed on the allotments;

·         The use of the land was statutory allotment land and therefore the proper consultation had not been undertaken;

·         Ms Wood referred to the swept path analysis and amended bund drawing showing the allotment site that was attached to the Update Sheet. She stated that this had been undertaken using a Skoda car which was not a large car. Many people who used the allotments needed access with a car and a trailer and there would not be sufficient space to allow that access;

·         Ms Wood referred to a bund which had originally been included in the plans and then had been removed. It was then put back in just five days before the meeting but had been reduced in size. She queried why that had happened and was concerned that the authority said that it could predict where the water would flow but plans kept on changing;

·         Ms Wood stated that the National Allotment Society had said that the Council would need to apply to the Secretary of State for permission in order to complete the work. She confirmed that she would follow that up as she felt that permission would not be granted as it would be a violation of the right to use the land;

·         The Food Standards Agency guidance states that if allotment land is flooded then it cannot be used to grow raw vegetables for a period of time, and that the scheme would result in the flooding of the allotments;

·         Ms Wood felt that the objections put forward had not been appreciated or listened to.

Councillor Richard Crumly said that he was present at the site visit and noted that the allotment land was higher than Dunstan Green and he asked if Ms Wood accepted that. Ms Wood responded that it was a not a question she could answer.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that Ms Wood had made reference to plans changing and he asked for clarification as to whether the size of the bund had increased, decreased or stayed the same. Ms Wood responded that it was not about whether the size of the bund went up or down but was a case of how the scheme could be valid if it kept changing. She confirmed that the size of the bund had reduced. Councillor Bridgman recalled that at the site visit discussions had taken place as to how big the bund needed to be and Officers had said that they would look into that. Ms Wood said that the bund would still block the access even if it was reduced in size.

Councillor Pamela Bale asked if the allotments had flooded in 2007 and Ms Wood confirmed that they had not.

Iain Dunn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr. Dunn confirmed that he was the Chair of Thatcham Flood Forum. He strongly supported anything that would prevent flooding;

·         There was no reason why the proposed scheme was not acceptable;

·         Some funding had come from the community and therefore not everyone was against the scheme;

·         The scheme was a strong element of the wider plan to reduce flood risk in Thatcham.

Councillor Richard Crumly asked Mr. Dunn if it was correct that 1,100 homes had flooded in Thatcham in the floods of 2007 and Mr. Dunn confirmed that that was correct.

Mr. Brian Cafferkey and Mrs Liz Allen in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr. Cafferkey stated that this scheme was part of a wider strategy following the floods in 2007 which also included Cold Ash and Tull Way;

·         Floods similar to those in 2007 were life threatening events and this was why this scheme was so important;

·         Bund heights varied between 0.5 metres and 0.75 metres to the northern part of Dunstan Green and higher bunds of 1 metre and 1.5 metres were situated close to the existing skateboard ramp and play area on the southern part of the site;

·         Following consultation with local residents the scheme had been amended to reduce the height of some of the bunds which would serve to slow the passage of water and act as temporary rain storage basins in the event of severe rainfall in the 1 in 30 to 1 in 100 year event category;

·         In terms of sustainability there would be minimum impact on public space and the bunds would be constructed with materials taken from Tull Way;

·         Mr. Cafferkey confirmed that funding for the scheme had come from a grant from the Environment Agency, the Town Council and the local community;

·         Mrs. Allen stated that there would be a loss of some of the trees and hedges as a result of the scheme but a comprehensive scheme had been provided for landscaping and improvement of planting on the site. This would result in an improvement to the quality of landscaping on the site and an improvement of the visual contribution to the local amenity;

·         The improvements in landscaping would provide year round colour and would improve the air quality in the area. Species of low stature would be included to reduce loss of light in some areas;

·         The landscaping scheme would also see the introduction of native grasses and wild flower areas which would provide yearlong visual interest throughout the seasons.

Councillor Richard Crumly stated that 1,100 homes had flooded in 2007 and he asked if this scheme would help to eliminate flooding of that scale again. Mr. Cafferkey confirmed that it would.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the drawing in the agenda showing the bunds into the allotment site and also the plan included in the Update Sheet. He asked if the plan in the Update Sheet was an amended plan to replace that in the agenda pack. Mr. Cafferkey confirmed that it was intended to. In order to minimise the impact on the allotment site the bunding had been reduced and pushed further north and the water course had been filled in more so there was a subtle difference. Councillor Bridgman noted the concerns of the allotment holders that the allotments had not flooded in 2007 but there was greater risk that they would flood now if water was diverted that way.

Councillor Marigold Jaques noted the comment made by Ms Wood that the Allotment Association had not been consulted. However on page 35 of the agenda in paragraph 6.5.2 it stated that neither the Town Council nor the National Allotments Association, who had both been consulted, had raised any objection to the scheme. Stuart Clarke confirmed that he had consulted Thatcham Town Council and the local Allotment Association and had explained the scheme which had been accepted. There were drainage issues on the site and he would look into those separately with a view to improving drainage on the allotments. Not all plot holders were members of the Allotment Association and the National Allotment Society was not something that he was involved with but he confirmed that he would be happy to seek their consent.

Councillor Pamela Bale asked if that was the only place the bunds could be located at the allotment site. Mr. Cafferkey confirmed that that element of the scheme had to be in that location.

Councillor Lee Dillon, as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Dillon confirmed that he had done a leaflet drop and knocked on doors on properties adjacent to Harts Hill Road and Dunstan Green and no objections had been received;

·         Councillor Dillon asked if the scheme was approved that consideration be given to pest control as that had been an issue in previous schemes.

In considering the above application Councillor Emma Webster referred to the comment from Ms Wood about permission being required from the Secretary of State and whether the recommendation would need to be amended to reflect that. The Planning Officer stated that Members could take a view but that it would be up to the applicant to seek that permission as it was a matter separate from planning.

Councillor Lee Dillon asked if planning notices should have been placed on the allotment fence or gate. The Planning Officer confirmed that the Council had complied with its statutory duty. Four notices had been displayed which included locations on Harts Hill Road and the Siege Cross estate and neighbour notifications had been sent to properties within 100m of the site. It was unfortunate that plot holders on the allotments had missed the publicity which included a notice in the local press. Comments had also been accepted after the closing date.

Councillor Pamela Bale assumed that the Allotment Association was a near neighbour. The National Allotment Society had been consulted and the Planning Officer confirmed that he had spoken to a representative of the Society on the telephone and had supplied information by e-mail on the 2^nd of January. However, an e-mail had been received on the day of the Planning Committee to say that they had not been consulted. The Planning Officer was of the opinion that the Council had followed due process. Thatcham Town Council administered the allotments and they had also been consulted.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the vehicle used to undertake the swept path analysis and asked if the Officer had any comments. The Highways Officer advised that a standard vehicle would be used – either small/medium or large. In this case a large vehicle had been used and which had demonstrated that vehicular access to the allotment plots was possible. It would be rare to undertake this analysis with a car and trailer unless it had been specifically requested beforehand.

Councillor Lee Dillon confirmed that he had consulted residents in Dunstan Green and had not received any objections. As a Ward Member for Thatcham he had been involved with the Surface Water Schemes and had attended site visits. He conceded that the bunds at Siege Cross would cause overlooking but the majority of residents would benefit from the scheme and he therefore proposed that the Officer recommendation should be accepted. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Crumly. Councillor Crumly agreed with Councillor Dillon that there would be an overall benefit to the majority of residents of Thatcham which would avoid a repetition of the floods of 2007 by reducing the threat of flood.

Councillor Emma Webster clarified that the recommendation also needed to include the additional condition set out in the Update Sheet. Councillor Keith Chopping confirmed that the recommendation incorporated that condition.

Councillor Lee Dillon said that at the site visit mention was made of the fear of an increase in low level anti-social behaviour. He confirmed that he was working with the local Police team to support the implementation of the scheme by increasing patrols and crime awareness in the Siege Cross area.

Councillor Graham Bridgman asked if Officers could ensure that the part plan provided in the Update Sheet replaced the original plan. The Planning Officer stated that the plan in the Update Sheet had been submitted too late to be considered as part of the formal submission, so approval would be granted subject to the plans originally submitted. The swept paths drawing showing a reduced bund was therefore for information purposes, but if Members wished to seek a similar reduction to the length of the northern bund in order to prevent it impinging on any allotment plots an additional condition could be applied to require approval of a similar amended drawing.

Councillor Pamela Bale asked that if the allotment area was flooded would it be possible for the Town Council to provide alternative plots. Councillor Lee Dillon confirmed that he would be happy to take that back for consideration.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in Section 8 of the Committee Report and the additional condition set out in the Update Sheet as follows:

Conditions