Agenda item

Further to the report the Committee was advised that one additional letter of objection had been received reiterating the concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  Furthermore, three additional representations from local residents had been received raising concerns regarding cesspools in urban areas; pollution and hygiene problems associated with cesspool emptying; the proposal being contrary to Planning Circular 03/99 in that where sewage disposal was unsatisfactory planning permission would normally be refused; and the need for non-mains sewerage to be carefully evaluated.

The Officers reported that a request had been received to protect the trees to the rear of the site by way of a Tree Preservation Order although it was noted that this would be addressed by way of a landscape condition.

The Officers reported that they considered that the proposal had addressed the refusal reasons of the previous application on this site with the exception of concerns regarding drainage.  It was reported that since the application had been submitted Thames Water had issued a statement regarding capacity issues in the area. The statement, which was read out in full at the meeting commented that there were known flooding problems down stream of this proposed development; Thames Water was currently investigating the network capacity issues in the area and anticipated more information with respect to proposed solution options which would be available in April 2008; until these investigations were complete and any identified infrastructure upgrades constructed, Thames Water considered that this proposed development would exacerbate known flooding problems and recommended refusal of the application until the existing capacity constraints could be alleviated.

It was reported that as a result of this statement, the applicants had amended the scheme so that four dwellings to the rear were served by a cesspool arrangement, with the fifth dwelling using the existing public sewer connection of No.8 Arnolds Way.  It was reported that under current regulations for non-mains sewerage drainage, the applicant needed the approval of the Environment Agency.

It was reported that in its response to the applicant the Environment Agency had made a statement regarding septic tanks which was read out in full at the meeting.  The Environment Agency had stated that the use of cesspools for the development was acceptable as a temporary solution whilst Thames Water undertook its drainage area study.  It had suggested to the applicants that once the results of this were available in April 2008, they should contact the Environment Agency with their plans to connect to the foul sewer advising that the Agency did not accept sewer capacity as an acceptable reason for not connecting.  Furthermore, the Environment Agency had stated that it did not accept the promotion or proliferation of cesspools as a viable long term sewerage option as in its view there were potential environmental, amenity or public health problems arising from inadequate operation and maintenance of these systems.

With regard to reconnection to the foul sewer, it was reported that a further letter had been received from the Environment Agency earlier in the day setting out an explanation of the foul sewer hierarchy.  It was reported that a proposed development might use cesspits on a temporary basis.  The Officers referred to the conditions set out in the report and it was highlighted that a condition was proposed requiring that no development shall commence until details of a foul and surface water drainage scheme had been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.  Furthermore, a condition was proposed stating that the development should not connect to the public sewer at any time without the prior written agreement of the District Planning Authority.  The Officers reported that the time limit could not be enforced as the Council could not insist on the public sewer connection and to this end it was suggested that the Committee should defer consideration of the application to seek further clarity from the Environment Agency. 

Dr Phillip Hawton made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council commenting that he too wished the Committee to defer consideration of the application pending further investigation in to the foul drainage. He commented that it was essential that the correct information was sought in this regard and he explained that in the past he considered that the Council had failed to ask the right questions of the Environment Agency.  He referred to his letter previously sent to the Council advising that it was possible to fit cesspools and then discharge their contents into foul sewage system. He considered that such a system would be adequate for this site.  He suggested that the Officer should explore with the applicant the possibility of connecting the cesspool to the main sewer but on a controlled basis.

Mark Rowley made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that the proposal was not sufficiently different to the refused proposal which had been upheld on appeal. He commented that whilst the number of houses had reduced he considered that there were still too many which he commented was unacceptable and inappropriate in this location. He commented that he could not understand why the Officers did not object to this application.  He referred to development elsewhere in Arnolds Way commenting that this site was not comparable and that the application should be refused on grounds over development and density.  He referred to a meeting of the Committee held in November when Members had recognised that the character of Cumnor needed to be maintained.  He considered that the density should be reduced.  Furthermore he commented that the trees on the site should be protected by way of a Tree Preservation Order.  Finally, he reiterated that the current application did not satisfy the reasons for refusal of the previous application and therefore it should be refused.  He emphasised that development should be in a coherent way and that this proposal was not acceptable.

Paul McCann, the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to the comments of the speaker on behalf of the Parish Council as set out above and advised that he had only learnt of the comments from the Environment Agency earlier in the day.  He commented that he would welcome deferral of consideration of the application to enable thought to be given to a controlled discharge of foul sewage into the public sewer.  With reference to the refused proposal he commented that this proposal provided a greater variety of house types which followed the local vernacular style.  He considered that the low density character was complimented and that the proposal was similar to development elsewhere in Arnolds Way in terms of density.  He explained that a revised layout had been prepared which showed sufficient room for layout and turning. He commented that the development would not be a cramped scheme and that the houses were further away from the properties in Arnolds Way and hence there would be no overlooking.  He referred to the maturity of the trees on the site advising that there would be no adverse affect in that regard.  He explained that there were no concerns in respect of highway safety.  Finally, he reiterated that he would welcome deferral of consideration of the application to enable investigations to take place regarding a revised foul water discharge system.

One of the local Members welcomed deferral of consideration of the application commenting that he could see no reason to refuse the application subject to the sewage discharge issue being resolved.

One Member considered that there were insufficient reasons to justify refusal of the application and that the drainage issue could be resolved.  He highlighted that the Environment Agency had stated that it did not accept sewer capacity as an acceptable reason for not connecting to a main sewer and therefore this would not be a valid and supportable reason for refusal.

One Member expressed concern regarding the sewage disposal being agreed on a temporary basis commenting that there was a risk that a mains connection might never occur and he questioned the powers available for enforcement in this regard.  He commented that he would wish to ensure a mains connection in the future. 

One Member referred to the different views from the Environment Agency and Thames Water to which the Officers responded that further clarity was needed.  It was explained that the Environment Agency was concerned with pollution and Thames Water was concerned with effective operation of the sewage system.  It was generally agreed that further information was required to include details of the legal powers available for enforcement of any connection to the main sewer.

Another local Member referred to existing problems in North Hinksey Lane in respect of sewage discharge suggesting that an inspection by the Environment Agency would be beneficial.

On consideration of deferral of the application one Member questioned whether there were other issues which needed investigation.  In response Members indicated that the proposal was in all other aspects satisfactory and would otherwise have been considered favourably.

The Officers commented that it was important that any other concerns or issues should be raised now so that they could be discussed with the applicant. As no other issues were raised the Officers explained that the application would come back in the same form with further information on the drainage issue.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application CUM/19875/1 be deferred to enable discussions with the applicant, the Environment Agency and Thames Water on a satisfactory scheme to address the concerns raised regarding sewage disposal with a report thereon to a future meeting of the Committee such report to include details of the legal powers available with regard to enforcement of connection of a temporary sewage disposal system to a mains sewer.