Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she was Ward Member for Chieveley and Cold Ash and a Chieveley Parish Councillor. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/00317/FUL in respect of the creation of a pond and embankment.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mike Belcher, Chieveley Parish Council representative, Mr Henry Peto, Mr Barry Ayres and Mr Cyril Wood, objectors, and Ms Jill Scrivener (Bourne Rural Planning Consultancy Ltd) and Mr Harvey Rodda (Flood/Drainage Consultant), agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Sian Cutts introduced the report to Members, which had been called in by the Ward Members due to there being more than ten objections. The report took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations, and in conclusion it detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to clarify his part of the report. Paul Goddard noted that on page 14 of the report, concerns about debris on the highway, due to exporting and importing material to the site, had been resolved as the majority of the work for creating the bund had been done.

5.     The Chairman also asked the Drainage and Flood Risk Management Officer to comment on the scheme. Stuart Clark explained that he had not been involved in the initial review and was content with the hydrological information that had been submitted. He noted that the amount of surface water flowing onto the highway was not serious and there had been no road closures due to flooding in that area. The main issue was that he was not convinced that the bund was fit for purpose and he needed to see a Slope Stability Analysis Report or plan for stabilising the slope submitted before the application was approved. He also had concerns regarding the maintenance of the bund. There would be a large body of water held by the bund, and water flowing off the hill would go into the outlet pipe and into crates. If the pipe became blocked, it would need to be cleared and this could only be accessed from the crest of the embankment, which had a 1:1 slope with a six foot drop to one side, thereby making a dangerous working environment. He was also concerned that should children play on the bund, they would be in danger of falling off it and into the road. He asked therefore, if there was a maintenance plan and what consideration had been given to the safety of children playing near the pond.

6.     Stuart Clark further informed the Committee that he had designed schemes similar to this in Thatcham and had used side-slopes of 1:4 to soften the appearance of the mound. A bund would always look artificial and even though aesthetics were objective, to those used to an unspoilt rural landscape, it would appear visually intrusive. If a side-slope were 1:3 or 1:4 it could be planted with grass or meadow-mix.

7.     He concluded that he required further evidence on the stability of the embankment and a maintenance plan to convince him that the scheme was safe.

8.     Mr Belcher in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         When Chieveley Parish Council (CPC) considered the application in March 2019, they expressed concerns over the possibility of increased risk of flooding to the neighbouring properties and that permeable materials had been used to construct the bund.

·         They had objected and urged for an independent report to be carried out. They were pleased to see that the report was carried out, however the new plan did not alleviate their concerns, which were: there was conflicting information as to the height of the bund; the soakaway and drain pipe exited water onto the footpath; the bund had not been properly constructed and was too porous, and there was no protection against rabbits undermining the structure.

·         CPC were also concerned that many mature trees had been felled before any permission to build the scheme had been given.

·         There was some hearsay that the pond was being built for commercial use.

·         Chieveley Parish Council objected to this application.

9.     Councillor Tony Vickers asked what was meant by commercial use. Mr Belcher replied that he was unsure as to the details.

10.  Councillor Adrian Abbs sought clarification as to how the Parish Council had concluded that the bund was not constructed properly. Mr Belcher explained that there were two other examples of bunds in Chieveley. He had conferred with West Berkshire Council officers as to how bunds should be supported and had been advised that they were usually supported internally by, for example, clay or heavy materials. There was also a rabbit problem in the area, and the Parish Council were concerned that burrowing would undermine the integrity of the bund. Councillor Abbs further inquired what evidence CPC had to support their view. Mr Belcher responded that the evidence was in the lack of information regarding safeguards, dimensions and porosity.

11.  Mr Henry Peto in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He lived downstream from the proposed pond. His property was flooded in 2007 by rising ground water.

·         This proposal was causing him real concern due to the size of the body of water, covering roughly half an acre, and being one to two metres deep. Its provision was out of proportion to the issue of alleviating a piece of boggy land.

·         He was not opposed to the principle of an attenuation pond, however due to the size of the proposed pond, he was concerned that it would be used for commercial purposes, such as fishing. Mr Peto asked that if the Committee were minded to approve this application, that they also impose a Condition to restrict commercial use of the site.

·         With regards to de-forestation, it was ironic that the reduction in the number of trees on the site had made the land boggier, and the run-off greater.

·         The soakaways and over-flow pipes would be sited above the footpath and would discharge water onto the footpath and subsequently his property.

·         He would like to see how the site would be maintained when the soakaways and pipes became silted, and asked that the over-flows be redirected away from residential properties.

12.  Mr Cyril Wood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         His property was sited in a hollow. There was a high water table in the area.

·         He had three main concerns about the pond, which were the size, the scale and that it would be above ground level and therefore put his property into jeopardy.

13.  Councillor Hilary Cole enquired as to the number of trees that had been felled near on the land. Mr Peto confirmed that he believed it to be about 30.

14.  Councillor Abbs was curious as to the height of the bund in relation to Mr Wood’s property. Mr Wood described that when standing in his kitchen he would be looking directly at the bund, as it would be a similar height to himself.

15.  Councillor Claire Rowles asked the objectors to describe their experiences of flooding. Mr Peto reflected that his property was flooded in July 2007 when rising ground water had entered his house. Mr Woods related that his garage had been flooded on the same occasion, and also that 18 months ago a sink-hole had appeared on Oaklands Farm starting at about 20-40 feet deep and increasing to 4m in circumference. Mr Peto explained that the land sits on a bed of sand. Councillor Clive Hooker commented that a bund would have no effect on rising water, as it came from beneath the ground. Mr Peto concurred.

16.  Ms Jill Scrivener in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The rationale for the pond was land management and its use as an attenuation pond was of secondary benefit.

·         The land was boggy and could not be used for anything. It was therefore felt that it was a good spot for a pond.

·         The works on the site and removal of the trees were due to changes to the residence, rather than for the pond.

·         The benefit of the pond would be to slow the movement of water across the land, and no further trees would be removed.

17.  Mr Harvey Rodda addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposed pond was not an attenuation pond, it was just a pond.

·         The ground had been excavated to a depth of between two and four metres, and therefore the water level had not been raised. The mass of water would not be sat behind the bund.

·         A study had been carried out to assess the impact of a one in one hundred year storm event with a 40% allowance for climate change. If the pond were to become full, the water would flow into the soakaways, then the run-off pipes, and then onto the footpath. The bund was not yet complete and the technical report had recommended a shallower slope.

18.  Councillor Cole raised the concern regarding the embankment and the management of the soakaways. Mr Rodda replied that this was in the geo-technical report. The Engineer had assessed how the bund should be constructed. The existing bund was not the finished article and would be improved and re-profiled. Councillor Cole further inquired if there were any springs on the site. Mr Rodda explained that the water emerged on the site by seeping and was intermittent. It was not fed by a spring. Councillor Cole sought confirmation as to the purpose of the pond, as in the historic planning application on page 8, point 2.1 of the report, it was called an attenuation pond, but was now ‘just a pond’. Ms Scrivener explained that the applicant had been given bad advice by their previous agent. Mr Rodda confirmed that his company had only ever referred to it as a pond.

19.  Councillor Vickers queried if the pond would be used for agricultural purposes, as had previously been suggested. Ms Scrivener explained that it would be for agricultural purposes, as it was on agricultural land. There was no plan to use it for commercial purposes. The pond would address the boggy land, would stop seepage onto the road, improve the quality of the surrounding land and provide a more controlled environment for run-off.

20.  Councillor Andy Moore had formed the impression that the trees near to the pond would be felled as the bund was behind the trees. Ms Scrivener explained that the trees were outside the area of the proposed pond and would not be felled.

21.  Councillor Jeff Cant remarked that he had read that the pond was for the purpose of water management, but if this was no longer the case, he was unclear as to the purpose of the pond. Ms Scrivener reiterated that it was for land management and that managing water was a side benefit of this activity. It was not an attenuation pond.

22.  Councillor Hooker commented that at the site meeting it was discussed that the pond would overflow under some conditions, into the soakaway and the overflow pipe and thence onto the footpath. This arrangement was acceptable for the agent, but not for the Committee as West Berkshire Council was responsible for maintaining the footpaths on behalf of the residents. Mr Rodda reiterated that this would be a one in one hundred year occurrence. Councillor Hooker asserted that it would not be acceptable for the footpath to be used for the overflow.

23.  Councillor Howard Woollaston questioned the purpose of the proposal. Ms Scrivener reiterated that it was in order to improve the condition of the land and movement of water across the land. The benefit would be to the environment. There was no hidden agenda. It was essentially, just a pond. There would be no negative impact on the neighbouring properties and it would enhance bio-diversity.

24.  Councillor Cole in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         The application had been called in because of the concern of local residents about the risk of flooding. She was also concerned about the wider environmental impact of the de-forestation. Curridge was unusual in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), because it was forested rather than open land. Trees soaked up water, and she felt that the situation was of the applicants own making.

·         Stuart Clark had expressed his concerns regarding the construction and stability of the bund. It seemed that little consideration had been given to the moulding and sharp angles of the slopes and their proximity to the road, or the considerable run-off towards neighbouring properties. It did not enhance the AONB.

·         The flooding in 2007 was considered a one in one hundred event, however there had been another one in 2014. No ecological study was carried out before the construction of the bund had been commenced. If bio-diversity had been the aim, there would have been more tree planting rather than the removal of trees, and a plan put in place. Although, she understood the land needed to be less boggy, she considered this to be an ill-thought out scheme, that had a detrimental impact on those to the north of the site and the AONB.

25.  Councillor Cant advised that he had never been so confused by a large hole in the ground. Page 13, point 6.4 of the report stated that the officer was satisfied by the technical details, however Stuart Clark did not seem satisfied. Derek Carnegie explained that planning officers were reasonably content and could see no objection on planning terms to the application. Planning officers rely on experts for other areas of knowledge, and it had become clear that there were serious concerns regarding the stability and safety of the bund. However, purely from a planning perspective, officers were content.

26.  Councillor Abbs commented that as the mounds had already been constructed, there was no way of knowing how this had been done. Stuart Clark explained that the applicant’s geo-technical report acknowledged that the bund had been built from a ‘dog’s breakfast’ of material and poorly constructed. Stuart Clark continued that the applicant’s report recommended a clay layer on the inner slope with a 1:3 gradient. However, the report did not provide any evidence that this would render the existing bund structurally sound and therefore safe. In his opinion, a clay layer would only increase stress on the downstream slope. Councillor Abbs further queried the officer regarding the effect of a one in one hundred year storm with 40% increase for climate change. Stuart Clark remarked that in the event of a catastrophic breach, almost all of the flood water would travel down the road, causing a serious hazard to motorists and pedestrians.

27.  Councillor Carolyne Culver questioned why the bunds had been constructed, when the application was rejected two years ago, and why there had been no action taken against the applicant. Derek Carnegie explained that the application had been discussed with the relevant officers, and it was considered that planning enforcement action to remove the bunds would be considered, if the application was refused by Committee.

28.  Councillor Rowles asked officers to expound on the maintenance needed for the bund. Stuart Clark explained that debris in the pond would collect against the outlet pipe. The only way to access this and clear it would be via the crest of the mound. This work might have to be undertaken in dark conditions, and with a slope of 1:1 and a six foot drop to the road, this could not be carried out safely. He also had concerns that children playing on the mound would be in danger of falling down onto the road. Councillor Rowles was astonished that this application had been recommended for approval. Derek Carnegie observed that in planning terms, the proposal met requirements. It was only when technical requirements were highlighted that concerns have come to the fore, and Members had been asked to consider and debate the proposal.

29.  Councillor Vickers expressed the view that the mound could be destroyed and rebuilt. However, ponds were usually in hollows and dips in the land. This site was a gentle slope and there would not naturally be a pond.

30.  Councillor Cole conjectured that she could not help feeling that the real reason for the pond was to improve the outlook of the new resident, and having heard the Stuart Clark’s concerns, it would be irresponsible to grant this application.

31.  Councillor Cole proposed that the Committee reject officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Abbs.

32.  The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cole as seconded by Councillor Abbs, which at the vote was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

The application is proposing the creation of a pond and retention and extension of associated bunds on agricultural land within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal has failed to demonstrate the need for the pond, and to provide evidence that the development can be completed and maintained in a safe manner, and does not incorporate measures for the long term maintenance and management of flood protection and mitigation measures, contrary to policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and as such does not demonstrate a high quality and sustainable design, contrary to policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. 

In the absence of any public benefits to the scheme, the proposal fails to represent sustainable development, and is contrary to polices CS14 and CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and the advice contained within the NPPF.