Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the application 22/00910/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

 

“Condition 10

 

Prior to the completion of the development hereby permitted and prior to the first use of the development as a reservoir, or within 12 months of the date of this decision notice, whichever is the sooner, full details of a disposal/reprofiling plan of any excess imported material not required in connection with the development shall be submitted to and thereafter approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include a timetable of implementation for the proposed works. Such works shall thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details or particulars and in accordance with the agreed timetable unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any excess material imported onto the site is removed or dispersed appropriately following the completion of the development, in the interest of visual amenity.”

 

Audio recording – 3:40

 

Anne McDonald presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

 

·         There are three updates on this item. Councillor Hill has written in in support of the objections set out by Councillor Morris in the report.

·         Following the publication of the report Councillor Morris submitted some additional queries regarding the possible 20 cubic metres obstruction of water. These were put to the agent and a response received which has been emailed round. This response also provided drainage plans which are displayed in the presentation. Also there is an update to paragraph 4.3.6 in the last sentence to read that water would be pumped through mobile irrigation equipment  to use on the surrounding agricultural land.

·         The third update is that Councillor Tyson submitted 6 queries following the publication. A response was received and was emailed round earlier today

·         Another update is that the description of development has been amended. The published report states retention of 5500 cubic metres of soils for an engineering operation to create an agricultural reservoir. This has been changed to retention of 11936 cubic metres of soil to create an agricultural reservoir with the capacity of 5500 cubic metres. The agent has confirmed agreement of that amended description.

·         This is a full application seeking the retention of soil that has been previously imported on the site and for the soil to be regraded and for an agricultural reservoir to be created

·         The reservoir is to be filled primarily by rainwater and surface runoff and this will be used to water existing crops.

·         The location of the reservoir is in an area of open countryside between Bush Wood and Rokey Wood.

·         The slides displayed showed a plan of the previously imported material which forms a rough U shape. As set out in the planning history, the previous importation of soil. Due to the reservoir not being able to be filled the works were no longer considered to be a viable project.

·         The banks must be a maximum of 4m-5m high and the reservoir is to hold 5500 cubic metres. The remaining soil is to graduate down to the farm along the south side. The side of the banks are to be planted with wildflower mix and a landscaping condition for any additional tree planting and/or fencing is recommended.

·         There is concern locally about how viable it is for the reservoir to be filled and will this harm water levels remaining in the catchment area and will this harm water levels in local ponds and streams. The Environment Agency raised no objection to the application. The slides displayed shows the drainage routes set out in the farm and is forming a network. the supporting information sets out that the rain water collected from the roofs of the farm and farm yard are to primarily fill the reservoir, along with runoff from fields which would be collected through these drainage ditches.

·         In regard to extraction, the reply from the agent is that if extraction is necessary to fill the reservoir, this would not and cannot exceed more than 20 cubic metres per day. Therefore it is not proposed to apply for an environment agency licence.

·         The mobile drainage system will monitor the amount of water that is extracted

·         There is no planning objection to the proposed reservoir as it is development to support agriculture which is in accordance with national and local planning policies.

·         The resulting works are not considered to be harmful to locality. It is noted that there is concerned with regards to the water levels in the area however the application does not propose to extract and in the event extraction is necessary, it will be below the threshold where a licence is required and the environment agency have raised no objection

·         The application is therefore recommended for conditional permission.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Michael Muir

 

In response Anne McDonald advised:

 

·         No the photos don’t represent what it will look like when it’s done. In the photos the banks aren’t high enough and they are too close to the footpath. It is described in more details in the report. The banks will be a maximum of 4m-5m high. The high point will be around 16-20 metres in from the farm track.

·         The footpaths aren’t affected as they are outside the red line within the plans. They may be affected in the future but short term they won’t be. The public will be able to see a grassy hill.

·         The amount of soil on the land is 11936 cubic metres. They have assessed imported material there is on the land and that is the amount they say there is. This is sufficient to regrade for the purpose of this application and no additional material needs to be brought onto the site. In terms of the checks, I am unsure of the answer.

 

The Chair invited Reed Parish Councillor Ken Langley to speak against the application.

 

Ken Langley thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation, including:

 

·         I am the Chair of the Reed Parish Council and I am authorised to speak on behalf of Reed and Barkway Parish Councils.

·         The application proposes to build a reservoir and fill it by various means including catchment from the roof of a grain barn. This barn is half a mile away from the site.

·         An extensive network of pipes and pumps will be needed and these are not described. We await the drainage plan, so today the application is not presenting you with a complete picture of the impact of this project on the environment

·         We are also concerned of the negative effect of supplying the reservoir with the 20 cubic metres of daily water extraction allowed without a license.

·         We worry this will affect natural water courses between Reed and Barkway.

·         Our main objection is that we are not sure how much inert material has been deposited. The application asked for 5500 cubic metres but prompted by your case officer the applicant agent has told us that 11900 cubic metres are needed and that all this material is already on site.

·         It is not disclosed that we believe there is a much greater volume of material that is on site. This material was imported in connection with an abandoned proposal to build a much larger reservoir covering the entire site. For this the applicant sought approval to bring 45000 cubic metres of material. As a result truckloads of material were delivered regularly between autumn 2018 and autumn 2020.

·         The applicant’s failure to acknowledge the greater amount of imported material is a material emission. We refer you to the existing site plan supplied by the applicant surveyor. This maps out where the site is higher than the lands natural elevation of 150 metres. Local observation reveals any flat areas remaining have all been raised by at least half a metre. We estimate that this alone involves at least 6000 cubic metres of added material. There is a mound that occupies around 2/3 of the 4.5-hectare site and on average this embankment alone consists of at least 20000 cubic metres of imported material.

·         The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the large amount of material brought to the site is needed to create this reservoir. You cannot be assured that the proposed landscaping will absorb the surplus material. The area not occupied by the reservoir cannot be levelled while retaining thousands of tons of surplus of imported material.

·         All surplus material should be removed and fulfils planning policies aim of protecting the natural environment.

·         We believe you should not approve the retention of 30000 cubic metres of material imported without knowing what will happen to it as only 1/3 will be used for the reservoir and the rest should be removed.

·         If you do approve this we ask you to impose a condition that the excess volume should be removed.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

 

In response to points of clarification, Ken Langley advised:

 

·         Local observation is people that were familiar with the site before it was defaced over the period of 2 years. The calculation of the material in the mount we rely on figures from surveyors

·         We don’t have anyone to do this but we do a simple calculation based on the information on the report. We are informed by this planning authority supplied a certificate of lawfulness to authorise the applicant to import

 

The Chair invited Councillor Gerald Morris to speak against the application as a Member Advocate.

 

Councillor Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation, including:

 

·         There was a previous reservoir application. Reed and Barkway Parish Councils and many others realised that this was primarily a material transfer commercial enterprise and not the construction of a reservoir

·         In 2019 on two occasions I met the owner of the company who carried out the work and he confirmed it was a material transfer activity

·         The original reservoir was never built and this one, if built, can never be usefully filled by rainwater alone without the applicant applying for a water extraction licence. Without this the landowner can only legally extract water at 20 cubie metres per day. If it rains for every day it would take 275 days to fill, assuming no evaporation or irrigation occurs.

·         Licence water extraction here would be at the expense of water flowing east to the local village ponds and streams. The environment agency have already pointed out including the applicant, that the extraction licence is unlikely to be granted and hasn’t been requested by the applicant.

·         The environment agency says they are waiting for servers to respond to the concerns about whether the reservoir can actually be filled before exploring the possibility of any enforcement action in relation to the lawful development certificate

·         The environment agency and our Council want what now looks like a Martian landscape problem resolved. The applicant can either remove the thousands of square metres of dumped material or try and construct a reservoir that the environment agency can confirm can be filled naturally with rainwater without an extraction licence. The environment agency says this is unlikely as it is a sensitive location at the peak of a chalk aquifer.

·         The applicant says the reservoir will be filled from local ditches, the environment agency says “these local ditches are likely to have minimal flows outside rainfall events and could be dry for long periods. The reservoir location is in an area where the issue of a licence is heavily restricted. The local extraction policy and limited flows is not likely to offer a reliable source of licensable water”

·         We now have information as to how the water will come from the roof of the buildings with mobile pumps.

·         While the officer states the environment agency has no concerns, the one line in the report doesn’t do justice to the environment agency’s letters I have handed the committee

·         The applicant must include far more detail and a time scale for the landscaping that will be carried out with the remaining surplus site material. the applicant also must confirm that the structure will not be filled with anything other than natural water

·         The applicant says they will not import any more material however there is no clay on site which the applicant says it will use to line the reservoir. Nor is there any top soil to landscape.

·         Have Hertfordshire County Council ecology been consulted? There is a public right of way, have Hertfordshire County Council rights of way been consulted? Have British Horse Society been consulted?

 

The Chair invited Anne McDonald to respond:

 

·         We have been back to the agent when the questions were raised during the consultation phase. Set out in the report are their answers to all these. I have to take as fact all the information provided by the applicant

·         The consultation is set out within the report. The British Horse Society wasn’t consulted as plans would not impact any riding paths. Hertfordshire ecology were consulted on the 5^th April 2022 but we have not had a response.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Tony Hunter

 

In response, Anne McDonald advised:

 

·         Both the agent and applicant were both unable to attend this meeting

·         When the report was written, the drainage details were lacking. They have since come in to say there is an existing drainage system in the farm, they already have the equipment and the agent didn’t think they would need to build anything specific. Condition 5 Part B talks about any equipment or machinery that will be used in association with filling the reservoir and how it needs to be used.

 

Simon Ellis also responded:

 

·         Condition 8 on page 26 of the report states that no additional materials are to be brought onto the site and only the material on the site already can be used. If you grant planning permission, we would have the authority to import other materials. Condition 7 also supports this.

·         There could be another condition added to say that upon completion of the reservoir, any additional material can be used or there can be a removal scheme. These can be submitted and agreed by the local planning authority. We can have control of when they do it and make sure they do it

·         The condition is going to require the applicant to submit a scheme about what they would do with any excess material, which we would then have to approve

 

Councillor Tony Hunter proposed and Councillor Daniel Allen seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the application 22/00910/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

 

“Condition 10

 

Prior to the completion of the development hereby permitted and prior to the first use of the development as a reservoir, or within 12 months of the date of this decision notice, whichever is the sooner, full details of a disposal/reprofiling plan of any excess imported material not required in connection with the development shall be submitted to and thereafter approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include a timetable of implementation for the proposed works. Such works shall thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details or particulars and in accordance with the agreed timetable unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any excess material imported onto the site is removed or dispersed appropriately following the completion of the development, in the interest of visual amenity.”