To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services Team 

Items
No. Item

6.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 217 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 10 May and 11 May 2022.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meetings held on 10 May and 11 May 2022 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Alan Law commended the comprehensive minutes of 11 May 2022.

7.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillor Graham Pask declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) as he knew two of the objectors, but reported that, as his interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Richard Somner declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4) as Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Countryside but reported that, as his interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter

Councillor Keith Woodhams declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), as an adjacent Ward Member to Bowling Green Road, but reported that, as his interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

8.

Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 87 KB

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications.)

8.(1)

Application No. & Parish: 22/00193/FUL, St Andrews School, Bradfield pdf icon PDF 293 KB

Proposal:

Installation of containerised biomass boiler systems.  

Location:

St Andrews School, Unnamed Road from Gardeners Lane to Buckhold Farm Pangborne RG8 8QA

Applicant:

The Warden and Council, St Andrews School

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to grant planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/00193/FUL in respect of an application seeking planning permission for the installation of containerised biomass boiler systems at St Andrews School.

 

Ms Sarah Weaver, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Dr Anthony Haden-Taylor and Ms Maggie Culling, objectors, and Mr Stuart Reid, Mr Ed Graham and Ms Penny Franklin, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

Dr Anthony Haden-Taylor and Ms Maggie Culling in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Ms Culling noted that she was the owner of Cullinghood Equestrian Centre and Herons Farm, and had no objection to the school having a biomass boiler system, however objected to its proposed siting 150 metres from her home and garden. Ms Culling feared that pollution and fumes would affect her garden, bed and breakfast accommodation business, and horses.

·         Ms Culling noted that her business attracted livery owners, visitors and wedding guests, many of whom were elderly and with health issues. During summer months many of them would be in the garden.

·         Ms Culling had spoken to XL Planning, who stated that the site of the biomass boiler would be safe as the fumes would be carried over uninhabited farmland. Ms Culling disputed this and suggested that the fumes would travel in a south-westerly direction, over Cullinghood Equestrian Centre and Herons Farm.

·         Ms Culling called on the Committee to obtain a full risk assessment of the proposed development from St Andrews School and the manufacturer concerning the effects of the particles and fumes.

·         Ms Culling additionally noted concern over the impact of the potential noise from the burner on her horses. Despite the manufacturer suggesting that the boiler was quiet, Ms Culling requested that a risk assessment for its effect on horses be undertaken, given that horses were flighty animals and prone to being alarmed by unusual noises.

·         Ms Culling further expressed concern over the effect of the heat on lime trees, which she understood would kill them within five years, and the potential to kill wild birds.

·         Dr Haden-Taylor noted that the exhaust gases from the chimney would range in temperature from 750°C to 850 °C. The height of the chimney would send the fumes directly into the canopy of the lime trees. Dr Haden-Taylor noted that there were 68 of them, and they had been there since the 1880s. Dr Haden-Taylor suggested that the intensity of heat would, without doubt, damage and kill the trees.

·         Dr Haden-Taylor suggested that the boiler be relocated to the far east of the property, 380 metres away, and the exhaust would blow over empty farmland. This would not detract from the efficiency of the plant, but would protect those to the north-west.

·         Dr Haden-Taylor additionally noticed that those with COPD, bronchial issues, and asthma would be adversely effected.

Member Questions to the Objector

Councillor Tony Linden queried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(1)

8.(2)

Application No. & Parish: 21/03154/COMIND, Bowling Green Lane, Cold Ash pdf icon PDF 519 KB

Proposal:

Construction of a detention basin with an area of 0.20 hectares and a 0.7m high earth bund to the south of the scheme. Realignment of an existing ditch for 12m into the proposed basin and installation of a bypass structure to facilitate flows in the existing watercourse downstream. A 300 mm diameter pipe will convey flows from the basin during flood events to the existing ditch to the south of the scheme before out falling to the existing Thames Water sewer to the southwest. The existing ditch will be regraded from the outlet from the basin to the inlet to Thames Water sewer. The provision of a 3.0m wide access track from Bowling Green Road to serve the Scheme. Removal and deposition and levelling of soil on adjoining land and land north of Tull Way. 

Location:

Land North of Bowling Green Road, Thatcham

Applicant:

West Berkshire Council

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to grant planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/03154/COMIND in respect of land north of Bowing Green Road, Thatcham.

Ms Emma Nutchey, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Pete Murray, Cold Ash Parish Council representative, Mr Alastair Lees, objector, Mr Brian Woodham and Mr Keith Hoddinott, supporters, and Mr Brian Cafferkey, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

Councillor Pete Murray, representing Cold Ash Parish Council, raised the following points:

·         Councillor Murray expressed his support of the application but voiced concern at the access road near Heath Lane.

·         Councillor Murray reported that he had contacted the Tree Officer in relation to imposing Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) at the site, but had not received any response.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

Members did not have any questions.

Objector Representation

Mr Alastair Lees in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Lees commented that he was not objecting to the scheme per se, but requested that certain conditions be included:

1)    Mr Lees commented that the oak trees at the site were particularly old and was concerned that the number of vehicles accessing the site would damage the tree branches. As such he requested inclusion of a pruning plan.

2)    A ‘no soil dumping zone’ was requested within 15 metres of the stream. Further it was requested that the soil not be disposed of in such a way that might damage the oak trees. He further suggested that the development be delayed until reports had been undertaken in relation to the hydrology and ecology of the soil.

3)    Mr Lees requested that the culvert be kept clear at all times. 

Member Questions to the Objector

Councillor Geoff Mayes queried whether the oak trees were within the boundary of the proposed site. Mr Lees responded that they crossed the boundary and so would need some further investigation. 

Supporter Representation

Mr Brian Woodham and Mr Keith Hoddinott of the Thatcham Flood Forum addressed the Committee with the following points:

·         Mr Woodham commented that the scheme would be wholly funded, owned and maintained by the Council. He stated that it was intended as a strategic defence and to protect the residents of Thatcham, not to facilitate any new developments.

·         Mr Woodham highlighted that over £200,000 had been raised in grants to assist with the scheme.

·         Mr Woodham asserted that the scheme would protect 960 homes, but was time dependent and so had to commence in September 2022 as any delay could compromise funding.

Member Questions to the Supporter

Members did not have any questions.

Agent Representation

Mr Brian Cafferkey in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Cafferkey explained that the proposed site was situated at a sufficient distance so as not to damage the oak trees. Trial pits had been excavated which had not found any significant tree roots.

·         Mr Cafferkey commented that the intention was to utilise all displaced soil, in order to have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(2)

8.(3)

Application No. & Parish: 21/03135/COMIND, West Heath Lane, Cold Ash pdf icon PDF 503 KB

Proposal:

Construction of 2 detention basins located north and south of a proposed access track connected via twin 450 mm dia. Pipes. The North Basin will have an area of 0.35 hectares and a 0.6m high earth bund and will accommodate a 20m wide spillway and a 20m wide weir. The South Basin will have an area of 0.23 hectares and a 1.4m high earth with a 29 m wide weir to accommodate exceedance flows from the North Basin and realignment of an existing ditch via 450mm dia. Culvert. A 450 mm dia. pipe will convey flows from the southern basin during flood events to a new cut ditch before discharging into the existing ditch to the west of the site. Flows from the existing ditch eventually discharge to a Thames Water sewer. The provision of a 4.8m wide access track to serve the Scheme. Removal and deposition and levelling of soil on land north of Tull Way and Bowling Green Road.

Location:

Land West of Heath Lane, Thatcham

Applicant:

West Berkshire Council

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to grant planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 21/03135/COMIND in respect of an application to build flood defences on the land west of Heath Lane, Thatcham.

Ms Emma Nutchey presented the report and highlighted the key points.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Pete Murray, Cold Ash Parish Council representative, Mr Brian Woodham and Mr Keith Hoddinott, supporters, and Mr Brian Cafferkey, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

Cold Ash Parish Councillor Pete Murray made the following comments in relation to the application:

·         Councillor Murray commented that he supported the flood management scheme, however raised concerns over the access road off Heath Lane. Councillor Murray suggested that the access road appeared to be creating a significant junction on the road. He commented that the width of the road seemed excessive given that it was intended to just be an access road.

·         Councillor Murray commented that a parishioner had also expressed concern over the size of the road suggesting that its size and potential extension might lead to future residential development on the site.

·         Concluding, Councillor Murray commented that whilst he supported the application, he wanted the Council to reduce the size and scale of the access road.

 

Member Questions to the Objector

Members had no questions for Councillor Murray.

Supporter Representation

Mr Woodham was invited to speak, but commented that he had nothing further to add to his previous statements.

Agent Representation

Mr Cafferkey was invited to speak and made the following comment:

·         Mr Cafferkey stated that there was no suggestion of any development on the site and that the access road would be used purely for maintenance by agricultural vehicles.

Member Questions to the Agent

Councillor Mayes queried how much water run off the basins had been designed for. Mr Cafferkey replied that the basins had been designed with a 100 years’ worth of climate change in mind.

Councillor Pask queried whether the road markings at the junction were required. In response, Mr Gareth Dowding commented that the markings were required to comply with highway standards.

Councillor Linden queried whether the width of the road was correct. Mr Dowding commented that the road would require the passage of large agricultural vehicles and consequently was the correct width to fulfil that required function. Mr Dowding continued by stating that in regards to any potential housing development, the road would require substantial changes to that being proposed, for example, the addition of pathways.

Member Questions to Officers

There were no questions for officers.

Debate

Councillor Linden proposed that the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be approved and this was seconded by Councillor Macro. At the vote the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that:authority be delegated to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to grant planning permission subject to the following planning conditions:

Conditions

1.    Commencement of development

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

Reason: To comply with Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(3)

8.(4)

Application No. & Parish: 21/03079/COMIND, Floral Way, Thatcham pdf icon PDF 426 KB

Proposal:

Construction of a detention basin with an area of 0.17 hectares and a 0.6m to 1.5m high earth bund to the west and south of the scheme. The crest of the bund will be set at 82.00m AOD and will accommodate a 10m wide spillway at a level of 81.70m AOD. Realignment of an existing ditch for 230m into the proposed basin and regrading 50m of existing ditch to the west of the site. The basin is set at a level of 80.30m AOD with a stilling basin set at 80.00m AOD. A 300mm diameter pipe will convey flows from the basin to the existing ditch to the west before outfalling to the existing Thames Water sewer to the south west. The provision of a 3.0m wide access track from Bath Road. Removal and deposition and levelling of soil on land north of Tull Way and Bowling Green Road.

Location:

Land at junction of Floral Way, Bath Road

Applicant:

West Berkshire Council

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to grant planning permission

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)), concerning Planning Application 21/03709/COMIND in respect of an application to build flood defences on the land at the junction of Floral Way, Thatcham.

Ms Emma Nutchey presented the report and highlighted the key points.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Richard Asher (on behalf of J G Janaway & Son), objector, Mr Brian Woodham and Keith Hoddinott, supporters, and Mr Brian Cafferkey, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

Mr Richard Asher, representing the landowner of the site, made the following comments:

·         Mr Asher commented that whilst he recognised the need for flood prevention he did not feel that the design of the basin had been optimised, for example by including the Thames Water flood lagoon at the edge of Floral Way. Mr Asher suggested that no attempt had been made to contact Thames Water about this. Mr Asher stated that this could lead to more use of his client’s land than necessary.

·         Mr Asher suggested that the surroundings to the lagoon would attract dog walkers and that dogs could escape and encroach onto his client’s land scaring livestock and destroying wildlife.

·         Mr Asher requested that the Council redesign the flood defences, to take consideration of dog walkers, and defer the decision until a formal discussion with Thames Water had occurred over the site.

Member Questions for the Objector

Members did not have any questions.

Supporter Representation

Mr Brian Woodham raised the following points:

·         Mr Woodham commented that the lagoon to the west of the site was built for a separate reason to proposed flood defences, and to integrate two completely different engineering structures would compromise the safety of both. The application proposed was to protect Thatcham town from surface water run-off.

·         Mr Woodham suggested that to delay the application in order to consult with Thames Water would impact the development and might potentially result in missing out on vital funding.

Member Questions for the Supporter

Councillor Law queried the purpose of the existing Thames Water flood lagoon. Mr Woodham replied that the existing basin’s primary function was to deal with residential housing and sewage and not surface water runoff. Mr Woodham also noted that it had been in existence since 2007 and had no effect in protecting Thatcham from flooding.

Agent Representation

Mr Cafferkey addressed the committee with the following comments:

 

·         Mr Cafferkey explained that the Thames Water lagoon served an existing residential development and was designed for a 30 year event. The proposal under discussion was designed for a 100 year event and as a flood prevention scheme. Mr Cafferkey commented that residential schemes would never be integrated with a flood prevention scheme. Further it was clarified that the flood prevention scheme would cover the whole catchment area, whereas the Thames Water lagoon had been designed for one specific residential development.

Member Questions for the Agent

Councillor Mayes asked for confirmation that the new drainage on the eastern side of the tree line, flowed down into the blue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(4)