Agenda item

Mr Morris had been due to make a statement at the meeting objecting to the application but he declined to do so.

The Committee noted the objection received from Harwell Parish Council as set out in the report.

The comments from the Environment Agency were highlighted and it was noted that it had no jurisdiction over this water course and therefore had no grounds to object to the proposal.  This view had been confirmed with the Environment Agency. It was reported that the Environment Agency had no knowledge of flooding in this area and this Council’s own report had stated that there were no reports of flooding here and no historical data regarding flooding in the past.  It was confirmed that the site was within the Conservation Area but that there were no public views of the area.  It was explained that in view of this the Officers considered that the scheme was acceptable.

One of the local Members referred to the concerns raised by the Parish Council.  She commented that whilst noting that there appeared to be no adverse impact on the Conservation Area, she was concerned regarding the visual impact of the proposal on the residents of the sheltered housing in Cherry Tree Court.  Furthermore, whilst noting the information regarding flooding reports, she expressed concern regarding the accessibility and maintenance of the watercourse.

The other local Members raised similar concerns and furthermore commented on the adverse impact should adjoining properties along the watercourse undertake similar schemes.  He referred to a pond near this property advising that a continuation of the decking could create further problems. He reported that a drainage pipe went over the stream and the applicants had wished to cover it up as it was unsightly.

Some Members spoke against the proposal making the following comments: -

·                    The decking was quite large and unsightly when viewed from Cherry Tree Court.

·                    There proposal adversely impacted on those resident in terms of visual harm. 

·                    If this application was approved it would be difficult for the Council to refuse similar applications along this watercourse which it was considered would cumulatively have a harmful impact.

·                    The entire water course was covered which it was noted the Environment Agency did not encourage.

·                    The application should be refused on the basis of the comments of the Environment Agency it being noted that it did not have jurisdiction over the watercourse but the Council did.

·                    The Council should ensure standards were maintained and agreeing to a proposal which would make maintenance of the watercourse more difficult or impossible should not be supported.

·                    Agreeing to a proposal which would restrict the ability to maintain the watercourse was unreasonable. Gibson – we should object to this. 

·                    The proposal was likely to increase the probability of the watercourse becoming blocked and that just because records were not available did not mean that flooding had not occurred in this area in the past.

·                     

The Officers referred Members to the report explaining that the Drainage Engineer had looked at the proposal and had not made any representations only that the access should be maintained. 

Furthermore, the Officers referred to comments made regarding the setting of a precedent and visual impact. It was reported that in terms of precedent, Members were reminded that each application should be considered on its merits and in terms of visual impact, whilst in the Conservation Area, the site was well screened. 

In response to concerns regarding the blocking of the watercourse, the Officers explained that the proposal did not include structures in the watercourse.  Reference was made to the letter from the Environment Agency and it was noted that an officer from the Agency had visited the site and had not objected as there was a clear span of the water course.

One Member supported the proposal commenting that if there was a means of access to the watercourse for maintenance purposes she could see no reason to refuse the application. The Officers reported that a trap door access within the decking could be sought.

In response to a comment made regarding ownership of the watercourse, it was clarified that ownership was not a material planning consideration but was a civil legal matter between the parties concerned.

One Member referred to the condition set out in the report and by way of a straw poll there being 6 for, 3 against and 5 abstentions it was considered that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, a condition requiring access for clearing purposes to be submitted to and implemented within an agreed time period before planning permission was issued should be agreed.

It was proposed that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and local Members be delegated authority to approve application HAR/1123/10.  On being put, this was lost by 8 votes to 5 with 1 abstention.

It was thereupon proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor Richard Gibson and by 8 votes to 5 with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application HAR/1123/10 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee such reasons to include the concerns of the Environment Agency that construction of decking over a watercourse is not encouraged in view of future maintenance requirements of the watercourse and possible flooding implications.