Proposed residential development of 3 dwellings.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed residential development of 3 dwellings.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Jane Rigler of Orcop Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Ms S Murphy, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs C Rawlings, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor DG Harlow, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was a current odour problem at Orcop Hill as a result of sewage and the Environmental Health Team was investigating.  There had been numerous complaints over recent years about sewage running into a well and then into the wider water course.

·        The Council’s Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) handbook published in April 2018 stated at paragraph 7.4 that cess pits were not permitted for new developments. Advice had been provided by the Planning Department on 8 May that the guidance in the handbook was not consistent with the adopted policy position that enabled cess pits to be considered in exceptional circumstances. Officers had acknowledged that there was a mismatch that did not reflect well on the Council.  This undermined confidence in the assessment of the application for a new development with three new cess pits on a greenfield site close to the village and had generated considerable local concern.

·        There had also been two opposing drainage reports from Balfour Beatty.  One on 12 March had objected to the use of cess pits.  The other on 2 May approved their use.

·        There was a high water table and cess pits could fail. Paragraph 6.40 of the report suggested that the risk of a cess pit overflowing was the same as a septic tank and package treatment plants.  However, the failure of the proposed cess pits would result in raw sewage flowing downhill contaminating land near existing houses.

·        The report referred to the concerns about unwanted smells and odours.  One of the three cess pits would have to be emptied at least every other week presenting a risk of such smells and odours.

·        The site was directly above the property called Homelea, sloping towards that cottage and the village.  Insufficient consideration had been given to surface water drainage and the risk of foul water run off to lower lying properties.  It was considered that policy SD4 had not been followed in that at no stage had alternative sustainable foul water treatment options been suggested, in particular there was no indication that the use of reed beds had been considered.

·        The assessment of traffic movements was contentious.  The indications were that a 13,500 litre tanker would be the largest that could be used in the site’s location.  Calculations in the application had been based on the use of 45,000 litre tankers.  Clearly this implied significantly more vehicle movements would take place than the 24 per year originally stated and the applicant had indicated in the update to the committee that this could be up to 68 visits per year for the site.  Objectors considered these figures remained an underestimate and there would in fact be 144 visits.  The Transportation Manager had based his assessment on 24 trips and this suggested the need for a reassessment.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy LD4.  The development was not sustainable entailing up to 240 tanker trips accessing the properties annually.

·        The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government guidance on water supply, waste water and water quality stated that for proposals for package sewage treatment plants that there was a need to consider the effects on amenity  because of the need for sludge removal by tankers. 

It should be noted that such plants were required to be emptied only once per year.

·        Account did not seem to have been taken of the cost that residents of the new dwellings would incur in emptying the cess pits.

·        The proposal, taking account of land locking, would entail the loss of 1 hectare of agricultural land to provide 3 executive homes.  This seemed an unsatisfactory exchange.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy SD1 which referred to safeguarding residential amenity and ensuring that new development did not contribute to or suffer from, adverse impacts arising from noise, light or air contamination, land instability or cause ground water pollution.  The application should be rejected because it relied on the use of cess pits, the problems it would cause to the highway network and the additional impact on surface water drainage.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Considerable concern was expressed about the proposed use of cess pits, noting that the site was on a hill and there would be severe consequences for dwellings in the vicinity if the cess pits failed.  It was unclear how it could be guaranteed that the cess pits would be maintained and managed appropriately.   Enforcement action could be problematic.  It was questioned whether the circumstances were exceptional and suggested that the proposal was therefore contrary to policy LD4.

·        The proposal might not be acceptable as it stood, but the site seemed reasonable and the Parish did need to identify housing sites.

·        There still seemed to be uncertainty over the number of tanker movements.  Such tankers emitted smells and fumes. Both this and the smell generated by the frequent emptying of the cess pits would have an adverse effect on air quality and the amenity of residents.  The proposal was therefore contrary to policy SD1.

·        The Principal Planning Officer commented that the Neighbourhood Development Plan was not at Regulation 14 stage and sites for housing had not yet been identified.  A minimum of 20 houses was required.  Six units had been committed but none had yet been built.

·        The suggestion in paragraph 122 of the NPPF that it should be assumed that pollution control regimes would operate effectively had not been found locally to instil confidence.

·        The Development Manager commented in relation to the discrepancy between the SUDS handbook and the Core Strategy that weight had to be given to policy SD4.  This did permit the use of cess pits in exceptional circumstances.  The Committee could form a view on whether the circumstances in this case were indeed exceptional.

With reference to the appeal decision referenced at paragraph 3.3 of the report, on a site to the east of the proposal before the Committee, he stated that it was difficult to make comparisons between the two sites. No precedent had been set by the appeal decision.

·        The PPO commented that the agent had suggested that the management of the proposed orchard and all hard surfacing and access roads would be in the joint ownership of the residents of the site.  Maintenance and management would be conditioned and subject to enforcement.

The applicant had not proposed reed beds or a wetland solution.  The PPO considered that those options, which had their own inherent disadvantages as well as advantages, were not appropriate solutions in that environment given the close proximity to other residential dwellings.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that work was proceeding on the NDP.  He agreed that enforcement action could be problematic.  There were not exceptional circumstances that provided grounds for the use of cess pits.  He also expressed reservations about the submission of late information to the Committee and the pressure this generated on local residents amongst others.

Councillor Baker proposed and Councillor Holton seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SD1, SD4, SS4 and SS6.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, none against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policies SD1, SD4, SS4 and SS6 and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to detail these reasons.

(The meeting adjourned between 12:17 – 12:25 pm)