Agenda and minutes

To receive and record any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Denton and Patrick.

To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 15 June 2023 and receive the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 13 July 2023.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 15 June 2023 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman; and the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 13 July 2023 be received.

To receive and record any declarations of interests from Members present.

There were no declarations of interests relating to matters on the agenda.

There were no matters to be considered for site viewing and deferment.

Proposal: Temporary use of land to carry out ground investigation works comprising the drilling of 2 no. boreholes and the installation of headworks and equipment to monitor ground conditions for a period of 18 months including mobilisation, decommissioning and full restoration periods.

Additional Documents

(The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

Proposal: Temporary use of land to carry out ground investigation works comprising the drilling of 2 no. boreholes and the installation of headworks and equipment to monitor ground conditions for a period of 18 months including mobilisation, decommissioning and full restoration periods.

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to grant temporary planning permission.

The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting, which included the following:

1.     An update paper, which included

a.      Notice of an additional representation objecting to the application; and,

b.      additional information received following the Site Viewing Working Party visit.

2.    Written deputations submitted by:

a.    Lawrence Blyth, the applicant’s agent

b.    Councillor Fairhurst

c.    Councillor Philippa Gray.

The Committee was addressed by:

1.   Mr Blyth, the applicant’s agent, who reiterated the issues set out in the written deputation submitted. 

   In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mr Blyth stated that:

·      the applicant would ensure there was a full restoration process for the Bidbury Mead playing fields in place which would initially need to be agreed with Sport England.

·      He would speak with Southern Water’s contractor, Clancy, regarding the restoration of the land following concerns from a resident about muddy ground conditions at the rugby club grounds in Hooks Lane after the completion of Southern Water’s works.

·      The security cameras covering the ground investigation works would be monitored at all times by a private security contractor. 

2.    Councillor Fairhurst, who reiterated the issues set out in the written deputation submitted. 

3.   Councillor Paul Gray, who addressed the Committee on behalf of Councillor Philippa Gray and reiterated the issues set out in her submitted written deputation.

The officers commented on the issues raised by public speakers and in the written submissions as follows:

·           The ground investigation works at Bidbury Lane were not delivering part of the water recycling project.

·           The National Planning Policy Framework was clear that arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission unless the development proposed was so substantial that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process. Officers did not consider that this was the case in relation to this application.

In response to questions from members of the Committee, officers stated that:

a.      The applicant would have been permitted to undertake ground investigation works for a period of six months without having to submit a planning application.  A planning application had been required because it was for an eighteen month period.   

b.      The Borehole 101 Monitoring Period Compound at Bidbury Mead was at least five metres from the back of the football pitch.

c.      A decision in relation to this application was not deemed to be prejudicial in relation to the Council’s position on the water recycling project as a whole.  It needed to be determined on its merits.

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33a