<p>Minutes of Theale Parish Council December 2016</p><p>MINUTES OF THEALE PARISH COUNCIL</p><p>Minutes of an Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting held on Tuesday 20th December 2016 at 7.30pm in the Peter Gooch Room, the Pavilion, Englefield Road, Theale.</p><p>Present: Councillors D. Wood, B. Williams (Chair), J. Richardson, A. Macro, S. Coker, A. Clark, D. Baker, D. Lye, I. Hopcroft & Z. Fenwick</p><p>In attendance: Clerk to the Council Jo Friend</p><p>Also present: Huw Thomas & Cyril Mitkov (Thames Water), Carmelle Bell & Alec Howell (Savills), Phil Brady (Peter Brett Associates) and three members of the public</p><p>Apologies for absence: Cllr P. Clifford</p><p>Declarations of Interest: Cllr Macro declared his membership of the Eastern Area Planning Committee and therefore his views may change if further information becomes available at a later stage 183/16/17 Open Forum for Members of the Public Cllr Williams welcomed all those present and invited the applicant to make their presentation to council. It was agreed that councillors and members of the public could ask any questions that arose during the presentation. Thames Water Presentation: Although the buildings/plant above ground have been removed from the site, there are still substantial underground structures existing. The SHMA has increased the number of dwellings per annum that need to be built within West Berkshire and TW believe there are strong reasons for this site to be included in the housing allocation. Q – Cllr Macro queried whether the Eastern area allocation was still insufficient as more sites had now been brought forward, especially north of the M4, and these were currently being consulted on in the HSA DPD. TW said the Treatment Works was identified in the draft allocation document but then omitted due to access and landscaping concerns. They believe these have now been addressed. TW spoke of the opportunities and constraints associated with the site. Q – Resident commented on the noise levels from the M4, at times it was difficult to have a normal conversation in the garden as the traffic noise was so loud. She asked what studies had been done on this issue. TW said a 24 hour noise study had been undertaken, this is the standard requirement and Environmental Health had approved the methodology used. Q – When was the noise study conducted as noise levels varied considerably? It was carried out on 16th – 17th October 2015, a Friday & Saturday. Members were of the view that a noise study should be carried out over a far longer period of time as sound levels varied dramatically depending on day, time and weather conditions. TW offered to provide more information on the study carried out. Q – Resident asked where was the new fire station going to be built? He had heard it would be at that end of the village and the extra traffic from the development was likely to have an effect on it. TW did not know the location of the fire station. Cllr Macro confirmed that it was not likely to be built in an area close to the M4 but he could not expand as the details are confidential. Q – A further constraint is the flood zone but this is not mentioned?</p><p>14 Minutes of Theale Parish Council December 2016</p><p>TW confirmed that they would not be building on Flood Zone 2, this would be the Public Open Space. The principal is one of ‘no detriment’ therefore building on FZ1 must not raise it to FZ2. Measures will be taken to ensure building on FZ1 will have a neutral impact in terms of flooding. This can be done by way of attenuation tanks and once the underground structures are removed the land will be more permeable anyway. Mitigation measures will be taken with regard to the POS on FZ2 – possibility of an attenuation pond, clearing out current water course, developing a ‘dry’ pond and so on. All matters other than access will be dealt with at a later stage. This outline application sets out clear parameters of what will happen. Q – Who will be responsible for the POS? Idea is that a management company will deal with it and this will be paid for by the residents. TW is looking to safeguard the POS for the future. The application is indicative of the mix of dwellings that could be provided. TW has looked at the housing needs in the area but the mix could be amended after discussions with WBC’s Housing Officer. Q – What mitigation is being proposed in terms of impact on infrastructure such as doctors’ surgery? Nothing specific is being proposed. That will be dealt with by way of CIL and S106 contributions. Discussions are yet to be had with WBC on this, TW are waiting for feedback from WBC as to what they feel is needed. Q – Would TW be willing to consider a local connection requirement for the affordable housing? Yes, TW would be willing to have that discussion if that’s what TPC wanted. Access: Additional footpaths have been put in and the application has passed a Stage 1 Safety Audit. Q – Has an alternative access been considered? No. Q – Why not look at linking the access into the dead-end part of the High Street and thus avoiding the congested road network? Cllr Macro commented that although they claim it has passed the Stage 1 Safety Audit, that document doesn’t read like a ’pass’. It notes the risk of ‘side-swipe and pedestrian collision’ and there is nothing on these plans to address those risks. The footpaths across the current open space (which will be linked into by these plans) are unsurfaced and therefore difficult to navigate in bad weather or with pushchairs etc. The footpaths in Crown Lane and Blossom Lane are inadequate. Effectively the highway becomes a one way road because of parked vehicles. Q – What about the construction traffic that will be using these roads? TW said this can be managed by a construction management plan which can state agreed routes and junctions for HGVs. Timed movements can be built in so no vehicle will be waiting on surrounding roads for access to the site. The parking of construction workers will be decided in accordance with WBC. The construction management plan will be finalised after consent, as a condition of planning. WBC is responsible for enforcing it. The development will produce an additional 1 or 2 vehicle movements per minute this will not have a material effect on surrounding roads. Q – Are you looking at the cumulative impact, ie looking at vehicle movements generated by sites that have been given permission but haven’t yet been built? Yes. Have you factored in the relocation of the primary school, especially the increase in numbers that will generate? No, but some of that growth will be contained in the ‘natural growth’ already allowed for. The volume of traffic can be managed. It will generally be predominately a tidal flow, ie most movements will be out in the morning and back in in the evening, this limits conflict.</p><p>15 Minutes of Theale Parish Council December 2016</p><p>Q – Have you studied the High Street traffic? The additional numbers, even 1 or 2 per minute, will have a substantial impact on the High Street which struggles anyway. No, we haven’t studied the High Street. Q – Where will the recently installed water pipeline be re-routed? It will be re-routed within the site, probably under the new roads. Q – What are the expected lorry trip numbers? There will be more than normal as there is a lot of material to excavate and remove from the site. However, some of this material could be used within the foundations so the number of trips could be reduced. Q – What are the timescales associated with this application? If outline permission is granted then TW can move quickly. The application was submitted on 22/11/16, WBC has 13 weeks to determine its decision. Then TW will bring in a developer who will submit a detailed application for the site. TW think the site can be delivered in 2 to 5 years. TW would be happy to raise with WBC the connection of CIL to specific infrastructure within Theale if that’s what TPC would like. Sewage: Q – Do the existing sewers have capacity for this development? Yes, there is sufficient capacity for foul flow. A pumping station could possibly be built on Crown Lane/Church Street, it would be up to the developer to upgrade the system themselves if capacity was not sufficient. Q – Is this the capacity after taking into account all of the agreed developments? Yes, the pumps at Lambfields have been upgraded to improve capacity. Q – Has consideration been given to the impact of the air quality at this site on the vulnerable, especially in light of NICE’s consultation on the long term impact of poor air quality on the vulnerable, especially those aged under 14? TW can ask their specialist to send TPC details on the work undertaken on air quality.</p><p>Cllr Williams asked if, before she closed the Public Open Forum, anyone else had any questions they would like to ask? She said, after this, the public were welcome to stay and listen to the council’s discussions but they would not be able to speak. A resident said she would just like to repeat that it would be really good if TW considered an alternative access. Cllr Williams closed the Public Open Forum at 8.50pm</p><p>184/16/17 Planning Applications</p><p>16/02850/ Outline application for up to 88 Former Theale Thames Water OBJECT OUTMAJ residential units (Class C3), Sewage Utilities Ltd public open space & associated Treatment Works, Access; outside highway works, with all matters Blossom Lane, settlement reserved except access Theale, Reading boundary; impact on infrastructure; air & noise pollution</p><p>Members discussed the planning application:</p><p>16 Minutes of Theale Parish Council December 2016</p><p>Cllr Macro said a resident had informed him that the site used to be used as a council depot many years ago and that sludge had been spread across the entire site. The contamination study needs to note this, and he was also concerned about the testing of the water in the boreholes not being comprehensive enough.</p><p>Access was a big concern for all. There would be problems at junctions plus on surrounding roads such as the High Street. Concern over HGV side-swiping and risks to pedestrians. The access road is too narrow, it is effectively only one car wide.</p><p>The footpaths in Blossom Lane/Crown Lane are too narrow, only 1.2m wide at times, they are also not continuous. The consultants say the development will not generate much extra traffic but you don’t need that much, especially in Crown lane, to cause problems. It’s already tricky exiting Blossom Lane in the mornings. Crown Lane and Blossom Lane cannot be improved. The spaces, especially in Crown Lane, are needed as passing places, they can’t be filled in with vehicles.</p><p>Concern over impact of construction traffic. They must not be permitted to move during school times, both morning and afternoon. How will the lorries and cars pass each other? They will drive up onto the pavement as they do now. The problems were bad enough when lorries used this site during the water pipeline construction work, this will be far worse. There will not be two-way access even after completion, a lorry requires a width of 2.6m, mirror to mirror. A 55ft artic is used to deliver concrete blocks to building sites, how will that work? There is an ongoing issue with the refuse lorries – when a car driver meets one then the car has to reverse into a suitable place in order for the vehicles to pass. Enforcement of the rules by WBC doesn’t happen – we have seen that with the Cumber Place development when lorries were waiting in the High Street and blocking the road, plus there were issues with the HGVs at Trafalgar Court.</p><p>Building that close to the M4 will not give a good quality of life to residents. Studies have shown that the high tension wires between pylons can concentrate pollution, gathering particles together rather than allowing them to disperse. TPC could ask for some form of sound barrier to be installed. </p><p>The site is outside the settlement boundary. This concerns councillors as, were it to be approved, the settlement boundary would have to be extended. There were also concerns over the funding of infrastructure required to deal with the impact of such a development. CIL doesn’t have to be spent within the parish in which the development is and, no CIL is payable towards the health service.</p><p>Councillors would like any Public Open Space land to be designated as such in perpetuity. If WBC is minded to approve the application then TPC should ask for this. Also should request that the existing footpaths on the Woodfield Way network are surfaced and a children’s play area or teen area is included in the application. There were concerns that the pylons are overhead the Public Open Space and there could be a safety issue with this.</p><p>Cllr Hopcroft said the site was rejected from the DPD on the grounds of access issues and he couldn’t see much remediation work being proposed which would take the site from unacceptable to acceptable. Other councillors agreed.</p><p>Overall, Members were of the view that there were lots of positives in developing this site but you couldn’t pick a more difficult location access wise.</p><p>Members RESOLVED to object to the application on the grounds of access, settlement boundary, infrastructure, air & noise pollution. Proposed Cllr Clark; seconded Cllr Richardson. All councillors in favour except Cllr Macro who abstained from voting. </p><p>There being no further business the meeting closed at 9.40pm.</p><p>...... Chairman to the Council</p><p>17</p>