Agenda item

Proposal:	Discharge of Conditions 16, 17, 18 Part  A, 18 Part B-D, 19, 20 and 21 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ
Location:	Institute For Animal Health, High Street, Compton, RG20 7NN
Applicant:	Homes England
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Development Control Manager to GRANT APPROVAL

 

(Item starts at 42 minutes and 24 seconds into the recording)

 

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning various applications for the Institute for Animal Health in respect of discharge of Conditions 16, 17, 18 Part A, 18 Parts B-D, 19, 20 and 21 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ.

2.       Ms Cheyanne Kirby 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 Development Control Manager be authorised to approve the information submitted pursuant to each of the conditions identified above in accordance with the schedules set out in the report and update report.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. In relation to the Construction Management Plan, Mr Goddard noted that the site was so extensive that it had its own internal haul routes. All large vehicles would enter and leave the site via the main access to the High Street. It was recognised that the haul route to the A34 was not ideal, but was the best that could be achieved. Construction workers would access the car park from Churn Road and no problems were envisaged. Officers recommended the Construction Method Statement (CMS) for approval.

4.       The Chairman asked Ms Erica Myers if she had any observations. Ms Myers indicated that she was happy with the site investigation reports submitted as part of the original planning application, and the additional reports and Remediation Strategy submitted under Condition 18. Site-wide contamination had not been identified, only isolated pockets. The remediation consultant was aware of the issues affecting the site and the Remediation Strategy contained detailed proposals for how contamination would be remediated and validated. Areas of the site had yet to be investigated due to the presence of buildings on the site, so some demolition needed to be allowed in order to provide access for the additional investigations to be carried out and the remediation proposals to be finalised. Once remediation was complete, a validation report would be submitted prior to occupation.

5.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Judith Cunningham, Parish Council representative, Mr Jon Turner, Agent, and Councillor Carolyne Culver, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

6.       Ms Cunningham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The Parish Council was disappointed at the deferral from the last meeting, but were grateful that the Committee was taking the time to review the application.

·       The Parish Council had requested that the application be referred to the Committee due to the lack of documentation available on the website within the consultation period.

·       The scheme represented a significant build for a rural community and included extensive demolition and decontamination.

·       A planning solicitor had been engaged to assist with due diligence on every application related to this site. This would ensure full transparency and the best outcome for the community.

·       Since the Parish Council had raised concerns about the lack of documentation, some had become available. However, the Planning Officer had not responded to questions and concerns raised as part of the consultation, nor did they respond to the Parish Council when missing documentation was made viewable.

·       The Committee had deferred two of the items as the Council’s Ecology Officer had not been able to make comment. Comments were posted to the Planning Portal on 27 July 2023.

·       While the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) must be adhered to, adjustments could be made on receipt of written confirmation from the Planning Department. The Parish Council asked to be consulted if any such adjustments were proposed.

·       Given the significance of the site, the Parish Council requested that in future, greater emphasis be applied to ensuring that planning consultation was completed to the highest degree, with full and timely transparency of all relevant documents.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

7.       Members asked questions of the Parish Council representative and were given the following responses:

·       It was confirmed that the Parish Council had not received a response to its letter of 18 April 2023.

Agent Representation

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

·       Mr Turner was standing in for colleagues who were on holiday, but was part of the same team.

·       Homes England had been working closely with officers and the Parish Council to ensure that any concerns arising from the request to discharge conditions had been explained and improvements to communications had been incorporated into everyday practice.

·       Homes England was committed to forging a strong link with the Parish Council and would ensure that any key messages, dates and milestones were communicated to local residents.

·       Regular updates would be provided via the parish newsletter and their contractor Cognition would be happy to discuss any concerns arising throughout the duration of the works.

·       The conditions for this application only related to those necessary to allow a contractor to start demolition and remediation of the site. A further application would seek to discharge additional planning conditions related to reserve matters once the next stage of development was reached. Details would be provided to officers and the Parish Council.

·       Homes England had worked with officers responsible for the technical checking of the planning conditions. They had confirmed that they had all the information required in order to recommend discharge of these conditions.

·       Homes England had worked with their contractor and a range of expert consultants and regulatory agencies to ensure that the information submitted was thorough and correct and met officers’ requirements.

·       Due to the nature of the site, there were further specialist agencies and permits in place that required an additional level of scrutiny to ensure that the site was being safely remediated. Additional consultants had been employed to monitor compliance and gather evidence to certify that all procedures were being correctly followed.

·       Homes England was committed to working with officers and the Parish Council to do the best job possible and prepare the site for redevelopment.

Member Questions to the Agent

9.       Members asked questions of the agent representative and were given the following responses:

·       Homes England would engage with residents via the parish newsletter and contact details for the key personnel would be issued. A suitable social media strategy would be agreed with the Parish Council.

·       The contractor had mobilised on site and was ready to start work, and bat hotels had been constructed, but further work was subject to discharge of conditions.

·       It was confirmed that contractors would be briefed about the challenges with the haul route and the need to take particular care at key points.

·       It was confirmed that Homes England had previously used the contractor engaged to remediate the Compton site at other sites in Plymouth and Hertfordshire.

Ward Member Representation

10.   Councillor Culver in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The Parish Council had asked for the application to be called in for a number of reasons, including the absence of documents ahead of the comments deadline. For future applications, the Council should ensure that documents had actually gone live on the planning portal after they have been put into the system.

·       Regarding Condition 18, the Homes England cover letter of 27 March 2023 had said: ‘Since the proposal is to remove contaminates from the site, a large amount of maintenance and monitoring is not considered necessary.’ The covering letter was available on the Planning Portal ahead of the deadline, but the accompanying document was not, so this had set hares running.

·       The remediation scheme and remediation strategy on the planning portal detailed contaminates on the site, and residents who used to work on the site and still lived in the village were very aware of what was there. The remediation scheme said: ‘it is considered that the potential adverse public perception from radiological and biological hazards… will outweigh any benefits from in-situ remediation technologies... It is therefore considered that in-situ treatment of biological and radioactive material are not suitable… and therefore off-site disposal to an appropriate facility is the most appropriate remediation option.'  The fact that the justification emphasised ‘adverse public perception’ was a concern.

·       In a letter on 27 April, Compton Parish Council asked for evidence of enforcement plans. The remediation scheme said: 'Not all materials that may require remediation have yet been identified at the site. Further investigation work is required.’ This meant that ongoing enforcement would be really important.

·       The Remediation Strategy said that material associated with historic nuclear weapons testing was placed into pots. No uranium isotopes were identified in the three pots that had been sampled, but 38 pots had not yet been sampled, so it was possible that uranium isotopes would be found, and decontamination processes and enforcement would be important.

·       Careful monitoring and enforcement should happen on site before material was put in trucks and taken through Compton and East Ilsley and onto the A34.

·       Residents had raised concerns about what would happen if there was an emergency on site and material became airborne or leached into the River Pang, just 15m from the site entrance.

·       Homes England had met with Compton Parish Council recently and would be meeting East Ilsley Parish Council. This engagement was welcomed. Councillor Culver had put them in touch with the editor of Compilations magazine and stressed the importance of timely and transparent communication with the community. They had also been encouraged to make use of the village’s Facebook page, which was also followed by residents of neighbouring villages.

·       If demolition vehicles would pass through Hampstead Norreys, Homes England should ensure that they communicated with that community too. 

·       Condition 20 stipulated working hours, but did not mention school hours. This had been included in the conditions for the approval of the application in 2022, and was considered to be important due to the large number of school buses passing through East Ilsley and should be included in the CEMP.

·       The CEMP included grids that detailed how internal monitoring and communication would be done between the client and contractors regarding any pollution incidents, but it did not mention informing the Council and the Environment Agency, or the wider community, so the document should be revisited.

·       The CEMP said that ‘a Project Community Liaison Plan will be established to provide a framework for managing communications‘. Homes England was urged to communicate with the ward member and the parish council going forwards.

·       Nobody wanted to leave the site in its current state, but it was important for the job to be done properly. Some local residents had worked on the site or had relatives who had worked there, so they were alert to the potential issue that may arise.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

11.   Members asked questions of the Ward Member and were given the following responses:

·       One of the reasons for the call-in was that the Parish Council had been concerned at the lack of key documents on the Planning Portal ahead of the consultation deadline. Councillor Culver shared their concerns.

·       People who had previously worked at the site had submitted responses to the initial consultation, and had flagged issues such as the nuclear waste from Bikini Atoll. Councillor Culver hoped that Homes England would be willing to have discussions with these residents.

Member Questions to Officers

12.   Members asked questions of the Officers and were given the following responses:

·       It was confirmed that the CMS included restrictions on all large vehicles in Compton and East Ilsley at peak times and around school start and finish times.

·       All of the documents relating to this application had been assessed by the case officer and other specialist officers from Ecology, Highways and Environmental Health, and all were deemed to be acceptable. Some of the documents had been submitted as part of the original application. In order to save space on the website, some documents had automatically been removed from the Planning Portal, but these could still be accessed by officers, or hardcopies could be viewed at the Council Offices. Officers undertook to check whether documents had been removed from the Planning Portal for future applications.

·       In relation to concerns about enforcement of restrictions on the movement of large vehicles, officers acknowledged that they would rely on the local community to report any breaches. Large vehicles would be required to enter and leave the site via the main access and use the dedicated haul route. The CMS included driver induction training and all deliveries would be managed and scheduled.

·       It was confirmed that the school hours were mentioned in the Construction Method Statement. Also, a condition relating to the school hours had been imposed as part of the outline permission.

·       It was explained that consultation had been in line with requirements of legislation and current policy. There was no statutory requirement for consultation on discharge of conditions. This was a technical exercise and the Local Planning Authority’s normal process was to consult with the technical consultees who had recommended the conditions. The current policy was not to have public consultation on discharge of conditions, but this could be reviewed if considered appropriate. It was suggested that this could be discussed at the Planning Advisory Group.

·       It was confirmed that the contractors had to conform with relevant legislation and permits. Also, Homes England had a duty to ensure that their contractors were undertaking remediation in a competent manner. The Council’s Environmental Health Team had previously worked with the principal contractor, Cognition Land and Water, on remediation of the Stirling Industrial Estate and officers had every confidence in them. It was noted that Aurora Health Physics Services had carried out extensive radiological investigations and had prepared a remediation strategy. The need for further investigations had been identified due to the presence of buildings on the site. The principal contractor and a dedicated radiation protection team would be on site throughout the works. An additional report had been prepared by Public Health England (PHE) on biological agent persistence and they would be happy to visit the site to assist as needed. The Environmental Health Team was happy with all the submitted proposals. Additional remediation proposals would be submitted on the back of further investigations. Validation reports would need to be submitted to confirm that remediation had been effective and the site was suitable for use. (Councillor Phil Barnett declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he had previously worked for Aurora.)

Debate

13.   Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate. He stressed the need for documents to be in the public domain for this site, regardless of the statutory requirements, due to the sensitivity of the site and the risk of reputational damage, as well as the expertise present within the community. He was concerned that there was no summary of the reports that the experts had produced previously.

14.   Members were reminded that if they felt they did not have sufficient information to determine the application, then they should not vote on the item. This would apply to each of the decisions that the Committee was being asked to make.

15.   Councillor Vickers suggested that for future applications, documents should remain within the public domain, so those residents who had knowledge of the sites could see them.

16.   Officers confirmed that once an application had been determined, documents were automatically removed from the website to save server space and prevent the website from crashing. However, the documents were still available for inspection.

17.   Councillor Culver noted that the Parish Council would be reassured if they could see the enforcement plans. Also, she suggested that the CEMP should make provision for communicating with West Berkshire Council and the Environment Agency in the event of an incident. She asked that these be included as conditions.

18.   Councillor Antony Amirtharaj was concerned that the Parish Council had not received a response to their previous letter and indicated that he was minded to abstain in any vote.

19.   Councillor Heather Codling indicated that she had confidence in the officers and was reassured that they had previously worked with the principal contractor on remediation of the Sterling Cables Industrial Estate.

20.   Councillor Vickers proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and approve the information submitted pursuant to conditions 16 and 17 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Dennis Benneyworth.

21.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Vickers, seconded by Councillor Benneyworth, to approve the information submitted pursuant to Conditions 16 and 17 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to APPROVE the information submitted pursuant to Conditions 16 and 17 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report.

22.   Councillor Howard Woollaston proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 18 Part A of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Benneyworth.

23.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Benneyworth, to approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 18 Part A of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to APPROVE the information submitted pursuant to Condition 18 Part A of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report.

24.   Councillor Phil Barnett proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 18 Parts B-D of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Clive Hooker.

25.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Barnett, seconded by Councillor Hooker, to approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 18 Parts B-D of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to APPROVE the information submitted pursuant to Condition 18 Parts B-D of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report.

26.   Councillor Hooker proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 19 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report, but with the condition that the Construction Method Statement be amended to specify the times when large vehicles movements to and from the site would not be permitted. This was seconded by Councillor Codling.

27.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hooker, seconded by Councillor Codling, to approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 19 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report, but with the additional condition that the Construction Method Statement be amended to specify the times when large vehicles movements to and from the site would not be permitted. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to APPROVE the information submitted pursuant to Condition 19 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report, but with amendments to the Construction Method Statement to specify the times when large vehicles movements to and from the site would not be permitted. This was for reasons of road safety.

28.   Councillor Codling proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 20 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Woollaston.

29.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Codling, seconded by Councillor Woollaston, to approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 20 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to APPROVE the information submitted pursuant to Condition 20 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report.

30.   Councillor Codling proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 21 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Benneyworth.

31.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Codling, seconded by Councillor Benneyworth, to approve the information submitted pursuant to Condition 21 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to APPROVE the information submitted pursuant to Condition 21 of planning permission 20/01336/OUTMAJ, in accordance with the schedule set out in the report.