Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item (4)2 by virtue of the fact that she was a member of Chieveley Parish Council. 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(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/00761/FUL in respect of Vine Cottage, Curridge Road, Curridge. The application related to the creation of an ecological pond, bunds, soakaways, earthworks and a soft landscaping scheme.

2.         Ms Sian Cutts, Senior Planning Officer, 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 previous reasons for refusal had been overcome, and the proposal was now acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.         Councillor Clive Hooker asked Mr Stuart Clark, Principal Engineer in the Drainage and Flood Risk Management Team, if he had any observations on drainage and flooding issues relating to the application. Mr Clark confirmed that he had had an assurance from the engineer that the bund would be stable, but Mr Clark required evidence in the form of slope stability calculations. He stated his concerns about the spillway, where in the event that the pond over-topped, the downstream side of the embankment could erode and undermine its stability, so it must be reinforced. He stated that he required details of where the pond would overtop, and how the bank would be reinforced. He indicated that he had previously questioned how the soakaway outlet pipe would be maintained and had suggested a walkway along the top of the bund. However, the proposed barrel-shape to the crest of the bund would make it difficult to walk along. He confirmed that the applicant must demonstrate that the reservoir could be maintained safely. He noted that previous concerns about the location of trees and potential root ingress had been addressed.

4.         Councillor Hooker asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader - Highways Development Control, if he had any highway observations in relation to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the bunds were already in place so there would be no issue with spoil being brought to site. He indicated that if Mr Clark was happy there was no threat to the public highway from flooding, then he had no objection.

Removal of Speaking Rights

5.         As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

6.         The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

7.         In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Mr Henry Peto, Mr Cyril Wood, Mr Barry Ayres, objectors, and Ms Jill Scrivener, Agent, Ms Kathryn Sadler, Agent and Mr Seton Fairhurst, Applicant. Those able to attend the remote meeting were, Mr Peto, Ms Scrivener and Mr Fairhurst.

8.         Individual written submissions were published online along with the agenda: http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=5735&Ver=4

Objectors’ Submission

9.         The Clerk read out the joint representation. Members questioned the attendee as follows:

10.      Councillor Tony Vickers asked if the pond being built into the slope of the hill with a protruding bund was unusual in the local area.

11.      Henry Peto stated that water flowed down the hill through his property and Curridge Road and that the natural place for a pond would be at a lower level. He noted that the pond would cover about two acres and sit in a slope. He indicated that he did not object to the idea of a pond but suggested that it was the wrong location for a large body of water near residential properties.

12.      Councillor Hilary Cole noted that it had been an exceptionally wet month and asked if there had been a significant increase in run-off onto Curridge Road from the site.

13.      Henry Peto confirmed that there had been an increase in run-off since the point at which 30-40 trees were felled on the site. He suggested that it was perverse that it was being proposed as an ecological pond when damage had already been done through deforestation.

Agent/Applicant’s Submission

14.      The Clerk read out the joint representation. Members questioned the attendees as follows:

15.      Councillor Adrian Abbs asked three questions:

                  i.        When had sand extraction taken place at the site?

                 ii.        Where had material used to make the bund come from?

                iii.        Had trees been cleared from the site? He noted that the applicant had stated that no trees had been cleared, but the officer had indicated that trees had been cleared to create the soakaway.

16.      Mr Seton Fairhurst explained that sand extraction had continued until the mid to late 80s, which had left an area free of topsoil. He indicated that the area was not on a slope, but flattened off towards the road. He noted that the area had a clay base on which it was impossible to grow pasture and it was barren to everything except gorse and bramble. He stated that the bund material had come from the initial excavation on the site. He had been poorly advised at the outset and was told that it was permitted development, so had started excavation, digging from east to west. He suggested that there had been a misconception about tree clearance and explained that there had been trees near Vine Cottage, but no mature trees had been cleared from the site itself.

17.      Councillor Vickers noted that the statement had indicated that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the site, and that it was a natural feature within the landscape. He suggested that the pond was not a natural feature in this location with its protruding bund. He noted that the agent had quoted Policy CS13, which related to transport rather than character and appearance.

18.      Ms Kathryn Sadler explained that the pond would be excavated out of the existing land and the proposed water level would be below the existing land level. She noted that the bunds were purely landscape features and would not be water retaining, with water levels not going above the base of the bunds or the existing land level.

19.      Councillor Carolyne Culver stated that it was commendable to create a pond for ecological reasons, but asked Mr Fairhurst why, if he had such concerns, so many trees had been removed. She noted that objectors (Mr and Mrs Ayres) had submitted images from Google maps, which showed a considerable number of trees on the site previously.

20.      Mr Fairhurst reiterated that there were trees in the garden of Vine Cottage, and part of the field that was not part of this application. He confirmed that trees removed from the site were laurel and rhododendron and recently planted garden trees, and that there were no large, mature trees removed from the area of the application.

21.      Councillor Hilary Cole noted Mr Clark’s concerns about too little technical information being presented and that pre-commencement conditions were required. She asked for confirmation that the agent was happy with these.

22.      Ms Sadler indicated that the applicant was agreeable to the pre-commencement conditions, which covered the construction method statement, bund construction method statement, and construction supervision. She confirmed that the engineer had designed the bunds and would supervise their construction to ensure they met the Council’s requirements.

23.      Councillor Phil Barnett indicated that he had driven past the site to get an idea of the position of the pond. He suggested that there was a considerable raised level of material already in place and asked if this would form part of the bund or if it would be moved later.

24.      Mr Fairhurst confirmed that there was no area around the house or outside the application site which formed a bund for the pond. He reiterated that the pond would be below the existing land level and explained that the trees on the site between Vine Cottage and the levels to which Councillor Barnett referred, precluded any water at that level. He confirmed that there was no movement of land anticipated around the house or anywhere other than the pond site itself and some between the pond and the access track.

Ward Member Representation

25.      Councillor Hilary Cole in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         This was the third time that the application had been to Committee and on the two previous occasions it had been refused, based on Mr Clark’s concerns about the suitability of the bund, potential flooding, and the maintenance of the soakaways. These concerns remained.

·         Although the applicant had gone a long way to address the concerns of local residents and Mr Clark, she shared their concerns about who would be responsible for monitoring and inspecting works and sought assurances from officers that ongoing maintenance of the pond and soakaways would be regularly monitored, should the application be approved.

·         Chieveley Parish Council was particularly concerned about maintenance of the soakaways, since failure to do this could mean that cottages beside footpath 32 may be subject to flooding.

·         The Council had worked closely with the applicant to ensure an acceptable development in accordance with economic, social and environmental principles. However, if the development were to be approved, a condition should be imposed for the pond not to be used for any commercial purposes, since it was located in a sensitive area within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·         She was unable to support the application, since the pond was out of keeping with the surrounding landscape, which was wooded, lowland, mosaic rather than open countryside.

·         Her recollection was that the whole site was heavily wooded, with Vine Cottage previously being almost invisible from Curridge Road.

·         Her belief was that the pond would have an adverse impact on the AONB where developments were expected to enhance the landscape.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

26.      Councillor Adrian Abbs asked when the bund was constructed. Councillor Hilary Cole suggested that it would have been before the first application was submitted in 2017, since the applicant had started work thinking that it was permitted development. She indicated that it had been there for between four and five years.

27.      Councillor Culver asked about the trees removed from the site, and if she agreed that they were laurel and rhododendron. Councillor Hilary Cole indicated that the site had been heavily wooded with some quite significant trees. She accepted that it was reclaimed land that had been previously used for sand extraction, but it had been a well-wooded and well-screened site.

Member Questions to Officers

28.      Councillor Clive Hooker asked officers to provide some direction as to where members should focus their deliberations. He suggested that there was a building regulations issue alongside a planning issue and noted that this was the third application, but issues remained in relation to the design of the pond and the maintenance of the overflow pipe, with significant conditions required to address these points.

29.      Ms Cutts suggested that progress had been made. She noted that the Council would be relying on the professional qualifications of the engineer supplying the information. She stated that the bund would need to be constructed in accordance with the requested details and calculations, and she was satisfied that if the applicant were to submit these details, then this should overcome any concerns raised.

30.      Councillor Hooker asked if members should focus on the impact on the AONB, flooding, ecology and highways as planning issues. Ms Cutts confirmed that this was correct and indicated that there may be a flooding issue if the design details were not correct, but the conditions would address this, so the main issues were appearance and whether it was an appropriate development.

31.      Councillor Culver noted that the applicant had commenced work because he had been poorly advised, and had been told that it was permitted development. Ms Cutts stated that he had not been advised by West Berkshire Planning Department. She indicated that there were some permitted drainage works for agricultural land, which the applicant was seeking to use, but this was not for an agricultural purpose, so it was not permitted development.

32.      Councillor Culver asked if the applicant had sought the Council’s advice. Ms Cutts was unable to confirm this either way.

33.      Councillor Cole asked Mr Clark if he was confident that the pre-commencement conditions would fulfil his requirements.

34.      Mr Clark indicated that he would like some input as to the exact wording due to their technical nature. He reiterated the main concerns as the design calculations, the spillway, and assurances that it could be maintained safely. He also indicated that he would like to see a condition requiring the developer to provide evidence that the bund had been built in accordance with the design and specification. He noted that the applicant had indicated that the bund was not a water-retaining structure However, it was on a surface water flow route. A 1 in 100 year storm would result in the pond filing quicker than water could be drawn off, so the bund would in effect become a water-retaining structure. He had previously asked what the existing embankment was made from and stated that in his opinion it was made from rubbish, and was therefore dangerous. This suggested that the landowner had a poor record in building water-retaining structures. He stressed that these bunds would be water-retaining structures that must be designed properly, and the Council needed to supervise construction to ensure they met the design standard.

35.      Councillor Abbs asked if this was not a straightforward change of use application. Ms Cutts confirmed that there was no use proposed for the pond, as it was there to retain water as an ecological pond, and there was no use class that it was being changed to. Councillor Abbs noted that it had been refused as permitted development for agricultural use.

36.      Councillor Barnett noted the pond dimensions of 40m x 58m x 1.5m deep, which would hold a lot of water that would exert considerable pressure on the bund. He recalled a dam failing in North Yorkshire last year and asked Mr Clark about the weight of the water the bund would retain.

37.      Mr Clark indicated that he did not have figures for how much water the bund would impound, but noted that it was a vast amount and that if there was a catastrophic breach of the embankment, then somebody could be seriously hurt. He stressed that it needed to be designed and constructed to stringent standards, and that his concern was purely about safety.

38.      Councillor Hooker asked how much weight should be attached to safety in this planning application, and queried whether this was more of a building regulations issue.

39.      Simon Till confirmed that the application related to drainage and flood risk and this was one area where planning overlapped a long way into a technical field, particularly since the Council had published supplementary planning guidance on drainage, flood risk and sustainable drainage systems. He noted that concerns raised in relation to water management and safety were matters on which Planning Officers would routinely consult with the Local Lead Flood Authority. He suggested that it was legitimate to consider whether the recommended conditions would be sufficient to control the passage of water without risking damage to health and safety or damage to property in the event of an extreme flood event. He noted that the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), specifically regarding Sustainable Drainage Systems, and the policy on flood risk management were relevant. He urged members to scrutinise the proposed conditions and to consider Mr Clark’s advice. He stated that conditions could be used to control drainage, flood risk and water management on this site, but stressed that they needed to be stringent. He suggested that it would be perfectly reasonable for members to recommend approval under the caveat that Mr Clark was re-consulted on the wording of the conditions.

40.      Councillor Hooker noted that the Committee was not qualified to apply appropriate conditions.

Debate

41.      Councillor Cole felt that the Committee was back to square one in terms of the safety of the bunds and their maintenance. She considered safety to be paramount and was nervous about approving the development, because the applicant had not been given much time to read the pre-commencement conditions and could come back subsequently if he felt the conditions were too stringent. She proposed to refuse the application until a better quality application was submitted taking into account the comments on this application and the two previous applications.

42.      Councillor Vickers agreed that the application should be refused, but was prepared to set aside the drainage as a technical matter and to allow Mr Clark to change the wording of the conditions. On a more fundamental issue, he asked why a pond was proposed at all, and felt that it could not be approved under policy CS19. He stressed the importance of protecting the AONB. He noted that there were ponds at Greenham and Bucklebury Commons, but not as big as this, and none were as close to the highway nor so visible. He considered that the proposal would harm the landscape character in terms of the local distinctiveness of this part of the AONB, and it would not be appropriate in terms of its location and design. He suggested that the pond should be sunk into the ground, located away from the road and should look more like a natural feature.

43.      Councillor Howard Woollaston considered that the proposal would enhance the AONB, but indicated that unless the Council had firm controls over how it was built, he would be minded to vote against the proposal.

44.      Councillor Abbs noted that a bund was a man-made feature, so it was an inappropriate development in the AONB. He suggested that the soil used in the bund should be put back and the trees should be let grow back, and that this was an enforcement matter.

45.      Councillor Cant agreed with Councillors Cole and Woollaston and would vote against the proposal.

46.      Councillor Woollaston noted that the land was of very poor quality and questioned whether trees could be re-established. He suggested that the pond was a good solution for what had been a sand extraction site.

47.      Councillor Vickers seconded Councillor Cole’s proposal, but on the basis that the CS19 argument was added to the reasons for refusal.

48.      Sharon Armour sought clarification on the reasons for refusal.

49.      Simon Till confirmed that Members had raised concerns with flood risk, insufficient information with respect to flood risk, and impact on the character and amenity of the landscape and AONB.

50.      Councillor Abbs asked if change of use was an issue.

51.      Simon Till explained that the default situation of land that did not have another use class was agricultural. This application had no stated change of use, with no intention to use the pond for domestic or commercial use, and would retain agricultural use of the site.

52.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cole and seconded by Councillor Vickers to refuse planning permission. At the vote, the motion was carried.

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

1.         Flood risk

The application is proposing the creation of an ecological pond, bunds soakaways, earthworks and a soft landscaping scheme on agricultural land within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal has failed provide sufficient 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 flood management 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.

2.         Impact on AONB

The application is proposing the creation of an ecological pond, bunds soakaways, earthworks and a soft landscaping scheme on agricultural land within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The formation of the bunds and the creation of the pond will result in alien and unnatural features within the landscape and fails to conserve and enhance the local distinctiveness of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In the absence of any public benefits to the scheme, the proposal fails to represent sustainable development and is contrary to policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and the advice contained within the NPPF.