Agenda item

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the proposal:

Mr Quentin Skinner, a local resident

Mr Colin Liddell, a local resident

Cllr Lesley Traves, representing Mere Parish Council

The Committee received a presentation from the Case officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application.  He explained that the application had previously been considered by this Committee at its meeting on 11 March 2015 when the application had been put before the Committee with a recommendation for approval, subject to conditions.

The Committee had resolved to defer determination of the application in order to seek further information from the Drainage Engineer on the practicalities of drainage of the site and to request copies of the Planning Inspector’s decision regarding a similar application at Alderbury be provided.

Subsequent to the Committee’s deferral of the application, the following additional information had been received:

·                The agent had confirmed that the applicant was of gypsy and traveller status and had not ceased to travel.

·                The applicant had provided the requested percolation test data, on which the Council’s Drainage Engineer had been re-consulted and had responded with revised drainage conditions.

·                The Highways Development Control Manager had confirmed and reiterated that the proposed development would be acceptable in Highway safety terms, subject to the conditions previously recommended. 

The Committee noted that the additional information provided did not lead to a change in the previous recommendation.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which the Committee received statements from members of the public as detailed above, expressing their views regarding the planning application.

Members then heard the written views submitted by Cllr George Jeans, the local Member, in which he expressed in particular his continued concerns regarding drainage and highway aspects of this application. 

During the following discussion the following points were raised and it was agreed that they needed clarification:

1.    The size and maximum capacity (in terms of bedrooms and the number of people occupying) of the proposed mobile home and proposed touring caravan.

2.    Whilst the percolation test results already submitted were acceptable to determine the required size of the foul drainage soakaway (dependant on the levels of occupancy) it did not really dispel the issues with the stormwater disposal raised by the objectors, particularly given the wealth of photographic information provided showing standing water on the site. Based on this it was considered that a further permeability test but to BRE 365 was required at the proposed stormwater soakaway location (different to the proposed foul soakaway location) to confirm that the site did actually drain in relation to storm water and also conform to size, to be shown on a plan.

3.    The provision of a plan showing the location of permeability testing undertaken and correctly sized soakaway (based on the maximum occupancy) plus location (at moment just a small circle on site layout with no other information) and the size of the septic tank, with soakaway construction detail.

4.    Information in relation to how “foul drainage “ would be provided to the proposed stables, where muck would be stored etc. and would it be separate from human system or combined?

5.    The existence of a pond in the northern corner of the site was raised – as appearing on OS maps in date range 1908 to 1933 and 1952 to 1992 – the pond was not shown on the existing site survey but Members indicated that it did exist. The applicant needed to confirm or otherwise the existence of the pond (the proposed site layout drawing did indicate the existence of a small pond in the top northeast corner but smaller than indicated on the OS maps).

6.    The EA surface water flood risk map for 1 in 200 event did show some surface flooding within part of the site but the 1 in 30 risk did not show any risk (as previously highlighted in the Drainage Engineer’s responses) – thus the location of any soakaway for foul/storm would need to be located away from this highlighted area and consideration of site access location should also take this into account, details to be provided on a location plan.

7.    The need for actual evidence as to the status of the applicant as a gypsy and traveller meeting the definition as set out within PPTS – this might be a statutory declaration by the applicant and/or information which confirmed the applicant’s gypsy status (evidence that he travelled – photographs, statements from family, etc.) and the circumstances of any ‘bricks and mortar’ property he is alleged by a third party to own.

Resolved:

To defer consideration of the application pending the holding of a site inspection on a date to be agreed and the provision of further information from the applicant as detailed above.