Agenda item

Proposal:	Demolition of garden store. External alterations to the Eastern Pavilion including the provision of rooflights (Retrospective). Erection of new Western Pavilion to provide home office facilities at ground level, guest accommodation at first floor and a basement level garage
Location:	Hayward Green Farm, West Woodhay
Applicant:	Mr Charles Brown
Recommendation:	The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission

 

(Councillors Hilary Cole and Claire Rowles declared that they had been lobbied on this item.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/01441/HOUSE in respect of the proposed demolition of garden store, external alterations to the Eastern Pavilion including the provision of roof lights (retrospective), erection of a new Western Pavilion to provide home office facilities at ground level, guest accommodation at first floor and a basement level garage at Hayward Green Farm, West Woodhay, Newbury, Berkshire.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Harry Henderson, Parish Meeting representative, Mr Ewan Christian and Mr John Handy, objectors, and Mr Steven Sensecall, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended that the Committee grant planning permission.

4.     Paul Goddard advised that there were no highways issues.

5.     Mr Henderson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The Code of Planning stated that planning effected people’s lives and that the process should be transparent to avoid suspicion of impropriety. The Parish Meeting had submitted 27 complaints relating to maladministration of the application by officers.

·           The applicant had refused to engage with the local community.

·           The planning officer had not been impartial in his assessment of the validity of the Section 106 agreement made in 2005.

·           Parish Meeting representatives had been excluded from a site meeting with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Board.

·           The hydrology report excluded the main issues impacting the site.

·           The applicant had no regard for the planning process or the community.

·           The planning officer had not been impartial.

·           The property would be visible from a footpath in the AONB.

6.     Councillor Phil Barnett asked if it was correct that the community had been ostracised from all consultation; Mr Henderson advised that he felt that was the case.

7.     Councillor Tony Vickers asked what was on the site previously. Mr Henderson advised that an agriculturally tied building had been built on the site which was later removed. The current property was over seven times the footprint.

8.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked Mr Henderson to expand on his complaint regarding officers’ conduct. Sharon Armour stated that details of complaints regarding officers were not relevant to the Committee and Members should focus on planning merits.

9.     Mr Christian and Mr Handy in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           No effort had been made by the applicant to engage with the local community so the Committee should not look favourable on the application.

·           The application if approved would lead to overdevelopment of the site with a seven-fold increase in floor area which was excessive.

·           The planning authority had failed to consult the AONB Board properly and Councillors had deferred the application in order to ensure this took place.

·           The Parish Meeting were refused access to a site meeting between the AONB and the agents.

·           Officers had lied to the AONB Board.

·           The hydrology report stated that the owners of Fishpond had denied access to their property which was not true; they were never asked.

·           There had been a significant decrease in ground water levels and a pond in the garden of Fishponds had dried up. It was formerly home to newts.

·           The Committee should learn from the problems at Parkway in Newbury where an underground carpark was built and caused subsidence in Victoria Park.

·           The hydrology report fell short of the expected standard as it did not look at upstream issues.

·           Trees were at risk.

10.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked Mr Christian if he had been asked to provide access to Fishponds; he confirmed he had not. Councillor Culver asked whether the pond was home to great crested newts; Mr Christian advised he did not know.

11.  Mr Sensecall in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The application before the Committee was not for the house which already had permission and had been built according to a consent granted in 2014.

·           Approval would see a net reduction of built space on the site.

·           The Committee had deferred the application in November 2018 to get further information and issues had been addressed in the hydrology report. Environmental Health and Thames Water, who were statutory consultees, raised no objections. No evidence to the contrary of the hydrology report had been submitted.

·           There was no requirement to allow the Parish Meeting to attend the meeting with the AONB.

·           Some amendments had been made to the design such as a car lift to replace the ramp for the basement garage.

·           Further amendments had been made following the late objection by the National Grid and now they had no objection subject to conditions.

·           Officers confirmed that the application complied with the Council’s policies.

·           He was a professional and had not behaved improperly at any point.

12.  Councillor Vickers asked when the two outbuildings were constructed. Mr Sensecall advised that one had been built before the applicant took ownership of the plot and he was prepared to demolish one in order to achieve the current application.

13.  Councillor Vickers asked whether the hydrology report included upstream issues. Mr Sensecall confirmed that it did as far as it could and that officers had accepted the report. It was hard to see how the development would have an impact upstream and the AONB was not a competent commentator on drainage.

14.  Councillor Abbs asked which of the outbuildings were original and Mr Sensecall indicated its location on the plan. Under a previous application it had been indicated that one of the buildings would be removed but this was not conditioned.

15.  Councillor Culver asked how many people would use the office facilities in the pavilion. Mr Sensecall advised that it would not be for commercial use and was ancillary to the main house. Councillor Culver asked how frequently the guest accommodation would be used. Mr Sensecall stated he did not know but the pavilion would not be standalone accommodation.

16.  Councillors James Cole and Claire Rowles in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Councillor James Cole declared that he lived in the parish and owned woods adjacent to the site.

·           There had been a long series of applications and the applicant had played the system. The parish had been ignored.

·           The AONB was supposed to be protected by policy. It was wrong to permit 50 acres of unnatural landscaping. The AONB representative had been appalled by the proposals.

·           The applicant wanted to remove wooden buildings which blended better with the environment.

·           It was not true that access had been denied to Fishponds in order to permit a full hydrological survey. The report mentioned two boreholes in the area when in fact there were four.

·           A local building contractor had refused to take on the construction job following a comment by the applicant that he was trying to get away with as much as he could on the site.

·           The applicant was taking the piss out of the system, process and Committee.

·           Councillor Rowles highlighted the impact on the community.

·           The house sat uncomfortably in the AONB and it was wrong to add further to this.

·           The pursuance of retrospective consent demonstrated disrespect of the planning process.

17.  Councillor Clive Hooker reprimanded Councillor James Cole for his choice of language which he felt was not appropriate in a Committee. Councillor James Cole apologised.

18.  In questions to officers, Councillor Jeff Beck noted the omission of an hours of work condition and asked that if the Committee were minded to approve the application that this be inserted.

19.  Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the speakers addressing the Committee had made personal attacks against the integrity of the planning officer and asked for an officer’s view on those comments. Derek Carnegie stated that he was Matthew Shepherd’s manager and considered him to be an honest and professional officer who had dealt with the case impeccably despite some horrendous abuse in relation to the application. The applicant had chosen not to engage with the community and officers could not enforce this. Planning officers were above influence and would never allow their judgement to be tainted although they accepted that not all parties would be happy with the outcome.

20.  Councillor Abbs asked for more information on the section 106 issue raised by the parish representative. Matthew Shepherd advised that the property was replaced in 2014 and the red line in the current application was consistent with the 2014 application. The 2004 application to which Mr Henderson had referred was never implemented. To refuse the application on the basis of the red line would not stand at appeal. Councillor Abbs asked if there had been an error on a previous application. Matthew Shepherd advised that there possibly had been and he was trying to rectify the issues. Councillor Abbs further asked about the outbuilding that had not been removed. Matthew Shepherd responded that no condition had been applied to require its removal but he couldn’t offer further comment on the previous case officer.

21.  Councillor Vickers noted that the blue line bordered Hampshire and asked if the relevant local authority had been asked to comment. Matthew Shepherd advised that it was only necessary to consult on the basis of the red line which was some distance away from the border.

22.  Councillor Vickers asked whether the hydrology report had properly considered upstream issues. Matthew Shepherd queried how far upstream the report would need to analyse. The SUDS officer was satisfied with the report and no evidence had been submitted which contradicted the report. Councillor Vickers noted that the AONB letter stressed the importance of upstream issues. Matthew Shepherd advised that the AONB Board was a landscape consultant and was not best placed to advise on drainage issues.

23.  Councillor Culver asked why a condition to install netting on hedges was recommended when the Council had no policy on netting. Matthew Shepherd explained that it would prevent birds nesting prior to the demolition and therefore ensure they were not harmed. This had been discussed with the ecologist. Derek Carnegie suggested that planning policy matters be discussed with officers in the relevant team.

24.  Councillor Hilary Cole commented that Members were honing in on the Fishponds aspect of the AONB representation but not on the assertion that the AONB and applicant sought to develop a long term relationship.

25.  Councillor Abbs noted that the large fence around the tennis court was missing from the photos displayed at the meeting and asked when they were taken; it was confirmed the photographs were taken in 2018 and the fence was the subject of a separate enforcement case. Councillor Abbs asked if there were any other planning enforcement cases relevant to the site; Mathew Shepherd advised that this was not a relevant planning consideration. Councillor Abbs made a further comment that some trees on the site had gone missing. Matthew Shepherd reminded Members that they should consider the proposal before them.

26.  In commencing the debate Councillor Vickers stated that there had been 23 applications on the site over 15 years which must have cost a significant amount in officer time. There were 58 documents of correspondence. He had sympathy with officers and heard Councillor James Cole’s views. He was surprised that Hampshire authorities had not been consulted considering the level they consulted West Berkshire on applications close to the border. Councillor Vickers regularly walked along the footpath and considered the current buildings to be an eyesore. He felt the whole history of the site was a cynical ploy to get around planning issues; this was the applicants long term plan and it made a mockery of the planning system. The only reason for refusal that he could think of was the impact on the AONB and in particular the view from Wayfarer’s Walk.

27.  Councillor Barnett expressed the view that he had not seen an application more difficult to determine. Some of the language he had heard at the meeting was unbelievable. The application had dragged on. There were inconsistencies, uncertainties and a lack of transparency. It was difficult to find a reason to refuse the application but he did not want to accept it because it would not do the community justice.

28.  Councillor Abbs stated that the application gave him a great deal of concern. He deferred to the expertise of officers but was concerned that enforcement issues would continue. He also had safety concerns about the gas pipe. Derek Carnegie reminded Members that they needed sound planning reasons to refuse an application.

29.  Councillor Hilary Cole stated that the application should be judged on its planning merits and the Committee should strip out inappropriate and emotional comments. No statutory consultees objected to the application. The AONB Board was not a statutory consultee but their input was welcomed. If the Committee refused the application they could be landed with costs at appeal.

30.  Councillor Vickers proposed refusal of the application for the reason of the impact on the AONB, particularly the view from Wayfarer’s Walk. This was seconded by Claire Rowles.

31.  Councillor Vickers commented that he was also concerned about the ground water and drainage issues. Derek Carnegie reminded him that the council’s drainage officer had considered the application acceptable.

32.  Councillor Hooker reminded the Committee that the application would lead to the finalisation of symmetry on the site and that the house and Eastern Pavilion had already been approved. The main matter for consideration was the Western Pavilion.

33.  The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Vickers to refuse planning permission contrary to officer recommendation, as seconded by Councillor Rowles. At the vote the motion failed with one abstention by Councillor Abbs.

34.  Councillor Hilary Cole proposed acceptance of officers’ recommendation to approve planning permission, this was seconded by Councillor Jeff Back. At the vote this motion was passed with two abstentions by Councillors Abbs and Barnett.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.            Full planning permission time limit

 

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

 

2.            106 Agreement

 

The use of the ancillary outbuilding hereby permitted shall not commence until the applicant has entered into a variation of the section 106 agreement of application 93/42531/ADD to vary the residential curtilage so that it accurately represents what has been approved under application 14/00590/FUL and 15/03435/HOUSE.

 

It is recommended that the legal agreements be updated to reflect the red line as it is to avoid further confusion. A refusal reason on this matter would likely be indefensible at appeal as the LPA has already accepted and approved the red line under application 14/00590/FUL and 15/03435/HOUSE. The recommendation of the variation of the 106 agreement regularises this issue.

 

3.            Approved Plans

 

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings

 

-       Drawing title “Site Location Plan “. Drawing number 6038/PLO1 Rev. B.. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Drawing title “Site Block Plan as Proposed”. Drawing number 6038/PLO3 Rev D. Dated received 14^th May 2019.

-       Drawing title “Existing and Proposed Site Section”. Drawing number 6038/PLO4 Rev.C. Date received 14^th May 2019. 

-       Drawing title “Proposed West Pavilion- Staff, Home Officer & Garage”. Drawing number 6038/13B. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Drawing title “Existing East Pavilion Proposed Alterations for Staff Apartment”. Drawing number 6038/05A. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Drawing title “Existing East Pavilion Proposed Alterations for Staff Apartment, Roof Alterations”. Drawing number 6038/06A. Date received 13^th June 2018.

-       Drawing title “Proposed Floor Plans”. Drawing number 6038/PL12 Rev. D. Date stamped 14^th May 2019.

-       Drawing title “Proposed Basement Garage and Link Plan”. Drawing number 5643/PL08 Rev D. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Drawing title “Proposed Roof Alteration”. Drawing number 6038/06a. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Document title “Design & access statement”. Document reference 6038 04s. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Drawing title “Proposed drainage strategy plan”. Drawing number 6683 – 501a. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Document title “Surface Water Drainage Strategy – issue 3 (with appendices) (small) 6683. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Drawing title Landscape and Planting Plan. Drawing number uh-283-100. Date received 14^th May 2019.

 

Reason:   For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

 

4.            Materials as specified

 

The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and the application forms.

 

Reason:   To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies ADPP 1, ADPP 5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006), Supplementary Planning Guidance House Extensions (July 2004).

 

5.            Ancillary Residential Use restriction

 

The outbuilding hereby approved shall not be used at any time other than for purposes as domestic ancillary use to the residential use of the dwelling known as Hayward Green Farm. The development shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit and no separate curtilage shall be created.

 

Reason:   To limit the future use of the building to prevent uses which would not be ancillary or incidental to the main dwelling.  This condition is applied in the interests of preventing a change of use which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development, and detract from neighbouring and local amenity.  This condition is applied in accordance with Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS1, CS13, CS14, CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies C1, C3 and C6 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, WBC Quality Design SPD (2006), and WBC House Extensions SPG (2004).

 

6.            Demolition of Garden Store and Garage Building

 

No development shall commence until the garden store and Garage building has been fully demolished and all waste removed from site.

 

Reason- The demolition of the two buildings is used to justify the approved development. Without demolition of these buildings the development would proliferate built form on the AONB not in accordance with policy, This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006) and House Extensions (July 2004).

 

7.            Landscaping

 

Prior to occupation of the pavilion the landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with Drawing titled “Landscape and Planting Plan”. Drawing number uh-283-100. Date received 14^th May 2019.

 

Any trees, shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of the completion of this development/of the completion of the approved landscaping scheme shall be replaced in the next planting season by plants of the same size and species.

 

Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented in full.

 

Reason    This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006) and House Extensions (July 2004).

8.            External lighting (details required)

 

No development shall take place until details of the external lighting to be used on the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved scheme before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. No external lighting shall be installed except for that expressly authorised by the approval of details as part of this condition.  The approved external lighting shall thereafter be retained.

 

Reason: The Local Planning Authority wish to be satisfied that these details are satisfactory, having regard to the setting of the development. To protect the amenities of adjoining land users and the character of the area.  The area is unlit at night and benefits from dark night skies.  Inappropriate external lighting would harm the special rural character of the locality.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies ADDP5, CS14, and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

 

9.            Removal of spoil

 

No development shall take place until full details of how all spoil arising from the development will be used and/or disposed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  These details shall:

 

(a)  Show where any spoil to remain on the site will be deposited;

(b)  Show the resultant ground levels for spoil deposited on the site (compared to existing ground levels);

(c)  Include measures to remove all spoil (not to be deposited) from the site;

(d)  Include timescales for the depositing/removal of spoil.

 

All spoil arising from the development shall be used and/or disposed of in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: To ensure appropriate disposal of spoil from the development and to ensure that ground levels are not raised in order to protect the character and amenity of the area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies ADPP5, CS14, CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

10.         Ecology Mitigation (implement)

 

The mitigation measures described in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal created by Ecologybydesign shall be implemented in full before the proposed development is commenced and the measures shall thereafter be retained. This measures are as follows;

 

-   The gutter and eaves of the barn should be netted to prevent house martins or swallows nesting there this season. If this is not possible and if birds commence nest building they should be left undisturbed until the young have fledged.

-       The installation of a barn owl box on a tree at the edge of the woodland to provide a new nesting opportunity for the species.

-       Should the development not commence within 2 years of this report a resurvey is recommended due to the potential for the ecological interest of the site to change.

 

Reason:  To ensure the protection of species, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

11.         SUDS condition

 

The Land Drainage and Surface water of the development is to be managed in accordance with the documentation submitted during this application; namely;

 

-       Drawing title “Proposed drainage strategy plan”. Drawing number 6683 – 501a. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       Document title “Surface Water Drainage Strategy – issue 3 (with appendices) (small) 6683. Date received 14^th May 2019.

-       A Hydrology Report (prepared by the British Geological Survey) received 22/05/2018.

 

This shall include the outfall from the pond at the downstream end of the SW network into the existing watercourse to be restricted by Hydrobrake to no more than 4 litres/second.

 

Reason:  To ensure the protection of land and surface water drainage and ensure it is dealt.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

12.          Submission of Engineering and CMS in Relation to Pipeline

 

No development shall commence until an Independent Engineering Assessment to confirm the proposed development and method of construction will have no impact on the gas pipeline, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the National Grid.  Thereafter the approved Assessment shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period.

 

Reason: To ensure the safety of the National Grids utilities Pipeline which runs through the site is not compromised by works. The condition is placed in relation to materials considered in regards to the health and safety of the areas and its occupants. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

Informatives

 

HI 3 Damage to footways, cycleways and verges

 

The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

 

HI 4 Damage to the carriageway

 

The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.

 

HI 8 Excavation in close proximity to the highway

 

In order to protect the stability of the highway it is advised that no excavation be carried out within 15 metres of a public highway without the written approval of the Highway Authority.

 

Thames Water Informative 1

 

With regard to surface water drainage, Thames Water would advise that if the developer follows the sequential approach to the disposal of surface water we would have no objection. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. Should you require further information please refer to our website.  https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Apply-and-pay-for-services/Wastewater-services

 

Thames Water Informative 2

 

Thames Water requests that the Applicant should incorporate within their proposal, protection to the property by installing a positive pumped device (or equivalent reflecting technological advances) to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions.  Fitting only a non-return valve could result in flooding to the property should there be prolonged surcharge in the public sewer.  If as part of the basement development there is a proposal to discharge ground water to the public network, this would require a Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures he will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water's Risk Management Team by telephoning 02035779483 or by emailing wwqriskmanagement@thameswater.co.uk. Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality

 

Thames Water Informative 3

 

On the basis of information provided, Thames Water would advise that with regard to water network and water treatment infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application. Thames Water recommends the following informative be attached to this planning permission. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

 

Landscape Management Plan

 

The applicant is encourage to engage with the North Wessex Downs AONB board and other relevant stakeholders to produce a estate management plan for the extensive landownership associated with the development to ensure conservation of the AONB landscape into the future.

National Grid Informative

 

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

• No buildings should encroach within the Easement strip of the pipeline indicated above
• No demolition shall be allowed within 150 metres of a pipeline without an assessment of the vibration levels at the pipeline. Expert advice may need to be sought which can be arranged through National Grid.
• National Grid has a Deed of Easement for each pipeline which prevents change to existing ground levels, storage of materials. It also prevents the erection of permanent / temporary buildings, or structures. If necessary National grid will take action to legally enforce the terms of the easement.
• We would draw your attention to the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992, the Land Use Planning rules and PADHI (Planning Advise for Developments near Hazardous Installations) guidance published by the HSE, which may affect this development.
• To view the PADHI Document, please use the link below: http://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/padhi.pdf
• You should be aware of the Health and Safety Executives guidance document HS(G) 47 "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services", and National Grid’s specification for Safe Working in the Vicinity of National Grid High Pressure gas pipelines and associated installations - requirements for third parties T/SP/SSW22. You should already have received a link to download a copy of T/SP/SSW/22, from our Plant protection Team, which is also available to download from our website.
• To view the SSW22 Document, please use the link below: http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=33968
• A National Grid representative will be monitoring the works to comply with SSW22. To download a copy of the HSE Guidance HS(G)47, please use the following link: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg47.htm
• National Grid will also need to ensure that our pipelines access is maintained during and after construction.
• Our pipelines are normally buried to a depth cover of 1.1 metres however; actual depth and position must be confirmed on site by trial hole investigation under the supervision of a National Grid representative. Ground cover above our pipelines should not be reduced or increased.
• If any excavations are planned within 3 metres of National Grid High Pressure Pipeline or, within 10 metres of an AGI (Above Ground Installation), or if any embankment or dredging works are proposed then the actual position and depth of the pipeline must be established on site in the presence of a National Grid representative. A safe working method must be agreed prior to any work taking place in order to minimise the risk of damage and ensure the final depth of cover does not affect the integrity of the pipeline.
• Excavation works may take place unsupervised no closer than 3 metres from the pipeline once the actual depth and position has been has been confirmed on site under the supervision of a National Grid representative. Similarly, excavation with hand held power tools is not permitted within 1.5 metres from our apparatus and the work is undertaken with NG supervision and guidance.

 

Pipeline Crossings

·         Where existing roads cannot be used, construction traffic should ONLY cross the pipeline at locations agreed with a National Grid engineer.

·         All crossing points will be fenced on both sides with a post and wire fence and with the fence returned along the easement for a distance of 6 metres.

·         The pipeline shall be protected, at the crossing points, by temporary rafts constructed at ground level. No protective measures including the installation of concrete slab protection shall be installed over or near to the National Grid pipeline without the prior permission of National Grid. National Grid will need to agree the material, the dimensions and method of installation of the proposed protective measure. The method of installation shall be confirmed through the submission of a formal written method statement from the contractor to National Grid.

·         Please be aware that written permission from National Grid is required before any works commence within the National Grid easement strip.

·         A National Grid representative shall monitor any works within close proximity to the pipeline to comply with National Grid specification T/SP/SSW22.

·         A Deed of Indemnity is required for any crossing of the easement including cables

 

Cables Crossing

·         Cables may cross the pipeline at perpendicular angle to the pipeline i.e. 90 degrees.

·         A National Grid representative shall supervise any cable crossing of a pipeline.

·         An impact protection slab should be laid between the cable and pipeline if the cable crossing is above the pipeline.

·         Where a new service is to cross over the pipeline a clearance distance of 0.6 metres between the crown of the pipeline and underside of the service should be maintained. If this cannot be achieved the service must cross below the pipeline with a clearance distance of 0.6 metres.

 

All work should be carried out in accordance with British Standards policy

 

• BS EN 13509:2003 - Cathodic protection measurement techniques
• BS EN 12954:2001 - Cathodic protection of buried or immersed metallic structures – General principles and application for pipelines
• BS 7361 Part 1 - Cathodic Protection Code of Practice for land and marine applications
• National Grid Management Procedures.

 

(The meeting was adjourned at 8.30pm)