Agenda item

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that the site was situated within their ward. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3).

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/00584/OUT in respect of Harefield House and The Gables, Hungerford.

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 the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Russell Davidson, Senior Scientific Officer, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Davidson stated that he had studied the Mediation Statement and held a number of discussions with the applicant, and found the application to be acceptable, and would break the pathway between the contamination and receptor.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Cole, Hungerford Town Council representative, Ms Lesley Roberts, objector, Ms Gemma Perry and Mr Simon Langford, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.       Mr James Cole, Hungerford Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Mr Cole stated that on one hand, the site needed to be sorted by the NHBC (National House Building Council), and that they had accepted responsibility. On the other hand, Mr Cole had read the objections, and Hungerford Town Council highlighted the parking issues affecting local residents, and the potential for the spread of contamination during works.

·       The Construction Method Statement on Condition 14 could be strengthened, particularly as the process would be long. Mr Cole asked that the Statement be adequate to ensure no further spread of contamination as a result of the works, such as potential air contamination while the earth was removed.

·       Mr Cole asked that the condition for parking set out for workers be detailed.

·       Mr Cole noted that Hungerford Town Council was concerned about residual pollution, and noted that NHBC verbally pledged that a barrier would be put in place. Mr Cole requested that that be made a condition.

·       Mr Cole noted that the Council might be liable for contamination as a result of malfunction of diggers.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.       Councillor Phil Barnett asked whether the request was for the digging area to be completely encapsulated. Mr Cole responded that it was not, and that he knew from experience that diggers could be messy and spread contamination. Mr Cole added that he was not suggesting a solution, and instead just highlighting the issue.

Objector Representation

7.       Ms Lesley Roberts in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Ms Roberts stated that it was not acceptable that adjoining properties were not protected as a result of the application.

·       Ms Roberts noted that adjoining property owners had already lost land as a result of the works done on the site, with boards put up to prevent loss of the land.

·       There was not a party wall survey included as part of the application, which should be included. If 60 centimetres was dug around the property, it was unclear how anything would be able to stand.

·       If the application was approved, it should be noted that there was no care placed on the people previously affected by the works.

Member Questions to the Objector

8.       Councillor Tony Vickers asked whether the objector lived in the property near Hamblin Meadow. Ms Roberts responded that she did.

9.       Councillor Vickers asked whether the difference in levels was to do with the reduction in levels while the properties were being built, and whether that was due to the same contamination issues. Ms Roberts responded that it was.

Applicant Representation

10.   Ms Gemma Perry and Mr Simon Langford, NHBC (National House Building Council), in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Ms Perry noted that NHBC provided insurance for the initial developer, and were independent from the case, and were only involved from an insurance perspective. The developers submitted a claim in 2019 due to contaminated land, which was accepted as a valid claim.

·       The application was just for the removal of the contaminated land, and further claims for remedial development would be considered. NHBC would settle claims with the property owners independently.

Member Questions to the Applicant

11.   Councillor Vickers asked whether the Council had remaining liability regarding the site. Ms Perry responded that the residual claims would not affect the Council. Mr Till responded that the insurance claims were not matters for the Committee to consider.

12.   Councillor Carolyne Culver asked whether the applicants would be willing to put up barriers between the site and the adjoining properties. Mr Langford responded that a barrier would be put up on the boundary, which was already there, and that there was a ‘no construction zone’ within two metres of the fence line.

13.   Councillor Barnett asked whether the applicants were considering some form of encapsulated area to prevent air pollution. Mr Langford responded that the recommendation was to dampen the area with water, to prevent it being lifted into the air.

14.   Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked whether there was any chance the walls could have become contaminated. Mr Langford responded that there was no evidence to suggest that had happened.

Ward Member Representation

15.   Councillor Tony Vickers in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Councillor Vickers noted that he did some research into the topic due to discussions with adjoining property owners.

·       He noted that in 2009 an application was brought to the site with no indication of land contamination, but it was mentioned and conditioned in later applications. Enforcement intervened when a local resident raised it as an issue. Councillor Vickers noted that the issues began when the Planning Inspectorate allowed the 2015 application to go ahead over the objections of the Council.

·       Councillor Vickers noted that the applicants should have been monitoring the site while development was ongoing, but that the result was that a number of residents were very concerned that the work to clean the land would disturb the land, which had lead contamination levels 12 times higher than the allowed amount.

·       Councillor Vickers warned that the work would go on for a number of years without support being offered to the residents.

16.   Councillor Dennis Benneyworth in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Councillor Benneyworth noted that it was important for the application to be heard in public, and so he had called it in. Councillor Benneyworth called for a robust debate on the application.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

17.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

18.   Councillor Culver noted in Point 4.5 that the work was expected to take 12 months, and asked whether the work would take 12 months or whether that was an approximation. Ms Cutts responded that the applicant had 12 months to commence the work, but it was not clear how long it would take.

19.   Councillor Woollaston asked where the contamination came from in the first place. Ms Cutts responded that it was unclear, and might be due to a foundry previously on the site, but that the relevant concern was that there was lead on the site.

20.   Councillor Barnett asked how the Council could enforce appropriate conditions to minimise the effect on residents and other parts of the site. Mr Till responded that a schedule of works had been provided, as well as a condition for a Works Management Plan. Mr Till noted that the Plan could be strictly controlled to prevent air pollution and limit movement of vehicles. Planning Enforcement were aware of the site, and the need to undertake remediation works, as well as the Senior Scientific Officer. Mr Till noted that he was aware that previous development on the site was troubled, and Enforcement had previously intervened, but that he had confidence that they would intervene if necessary.

21.   The Chairman asked whether officers could condition a party wall assessment. Mr Till responded that legislation was different from Planning, and that it could not be conditioned, but that it was likely to be required under that legislation for the applicant to complete their works.

22.   The Chairman asked what the Council’s powers were in regards to protecting residents. Mr Till responded that additional measures were added to the Construction Management Plan condition to ensure that. Concerns regarding off-site contamination other than airborne could be added to that plan. Mr Davidson added that there were doubts regarding contamination through the wall, due to the low solubility of lead in soil, but that sampling could be done.

23.   Councillor Benneyworth asked whether the red line on the application denoted the extent of the contamination monitoring. Mr Till responded that it did not have to, and that the Environmental Health Officer had to be satisfied that monitoring was sufficient and that he could require further monitoring to prevent off-site leaching.

24.   Councillor Vickers noted that the application was only looking at contamination within the site, and that it was likely to have extended beyond the site ever since the development started, and asked whether the applicant could be required to mitigate harm beyond the site. Mr Till responded that the application was a starting point for identifying the contamination on the site. If off-site contamination was identified, there might be a larger case for further decontamination works, which would fall under the requirements of environmental legislation. Mr Davidson responded that it might be prudent to take samples beyond the wall to see if the contamination had leached.

25.   The Chairman asked whether the Committee had the power to require that sampling. Mr Till responded that it would be outside the remit of the Committee, as the application regarded a specific area.

26.   Councillor Clive Hooker noted that there should be a baseline for contamination outside the land, so that it could be ascertained whether the work had made it worse. Mr Till responded that the request was outside the remit of the planning application.

Debate

27.   Councillor Vickers opened the debate by stating that there had been changes of level in the Hamblin Meadow area, and that the land was heavily contaminated. Councillor Vickers had concluded that the Committee had to approve the application, but that it was not the end of the story.

28.   Councillor Hooker stated that the reason the previous application on the site had been brought to the Committee was due to the fact that the proposed houses were too high, and the application was eventually allowed to go ahead due to an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Councillor Hooker stated that the site was the reason why Members were asked to wear personal protective equipment on sites.

29.   Councillor Howard Woollaston noted that he was deeply sorry for the residents, but that the best outcome would be to have remediation on the land as soon as possible.

30.   Councillor Heather Codling noted that Councillor Culver raised vehicle movements as an issue, and asked whether a condition could be placed to limit movements. Mr Till responded that Condition 14 for the Construction Method Statement would set out a number of points regarding management of parking and vehicle movements, as well as measures to control airborne dust.

31.   Councillor Barnett noted that there should be an appropriate method of disposal of any contaminants. Mr Till responded that the disposal had to be at a licensed site, but that the route to the site was not able to be subject to a condition, and would be very difficult to enforce.

32.   The Chairman stated that the Committee was clear that it was doing what it could within the powers that it had.

33.   Councillor Howard Woollaston proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Clive Hooker.

34.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Hooker to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Informatives