Agenda item

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/02536/FULMAJ in respect of a Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of approved application 21/03154/COMIND: 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 300mm 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 north of Tull Way.

2.     Mr Jake Brown, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. He explained that the item was before the Western Area Planning Committee as the ward boundaries had changed since the original permission given by the Eastern Area Planning Committee. It was also a West Berkshire Council application.

3.     In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

4.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways Development Control Team Leader, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard advised there were no highway concerns. He noted that a greater level of spoil was to be retained on the site meaning there would be less large vehicle movements to transport the spoil off site.

5.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Alistair Lees, objector, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr Brian Cafferkey, agent, was permitted to answer questions of clarification. Members agreed to suspend standing orders to allow this.

Objector Representation

6.     Mr Lees addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 20th November 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

7.     Members asked a question of clarification and were given the following response:

·         Mr Lees confirmed that the current levels of deposition were well in excess of the 0.75m being proposed. This impacted on views from his property.

Member Questions to the Agent

8.     Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         The seeding for the wildflower meadow would take place in the spring of 2025. The land would be tidied and topsoil added as part of that process.

·         The soil deposition would not exceed an average of 0.75m in line with the planning permission. Mr Cafferkey explained that this could differ to a minor degree during the construction phase.

·         Mr Cafferkey further explained that the removal of excess soil/spoil would be to landfill. This would incur a cost to the Council and would likely be a matter of concern for the Environment Agency. It was a more sustainable solution to keep this on site as was proposed.

Standing orders were reinstated.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·         There were some variations in the soil deposition levels. Some areas had a greater depth than others. The worse case position was estimated at one metre.

10.  Members felt that it would be appropriate for future such applications to have the depth at a set level but with a small degree of tolerance as it was very difficult to be completely precise. It was also noted that communication on this matter with local residents should have been clearer.

Debate

11.  Councillor Abbs proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Nigel Foot

12.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Abbs, seconded by Councillor Foot, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report.