Issue - meetings


Meeting: 08/09/2021 - Planning Committee (Item 39)

39 Application No.212164 - Lord Harris Court, Mole Road, Sindlesham, Winnersh pdf icon PDF 349 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:


Proposal: Full application for the proposed installation of a Non Return Valve and 24 hour storage cesspit to store effluent. (Retrospective)


Applicant: Ed Knott c/o RMBI Care Company


The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 231 to 248.


The Committee were advised that updates contained within the supplementary planning agenda included:


·           Updated condition 1;

·           Correction that agenda page 233 should refer to condition number 2 rather than condition number 3;

·           Updated consultation response from Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) Trees and Landscapes to recommend approval subject to condition 2.


Chris Bowring proposed an extension to the meeting of up to 30 minutes. This was seconded by Carl Doran and upon being but to the vote the motion was carried.


Paul Fishwick, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Paul stated that this was not an isolated dwelling, with the building adjoining a residential area. Paul was of the opinion that the applicant had not provided evidence of a blockage of the sewerage system, and there was no local evidence of issues relating to the foul sewerage systems. Paul added that there were issues of a foul smell every time the cesspit had to be emptied. Paul stated that he had photo evidence of multiple vehicles emptying the cesspit in a different location to the one pictured by officers which created access issues for vehicles. Paul felt that the cesspit was not acceptable for this area and the application should be refused.


Natalie Jarman, case officer, stated that construction work was still taking place on the new care home, which might explain the issues with the sewerage. Natalie added that the building was still connected to the main sewerage system and this was a backup solution.


Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey was of the opinion that the cesspit was not required, as a backup system should not be required for over a year.


Carl Doran queried whether there was any reason legally why the applicant could not use the cesspit as their main solution for foul waste, and queried whether it was a planning issue if the vehicles emptying the cesspit were blocking access on a corner of a road. Natalie Jarman stated that the size of the tank would make it very unlikely for it to be feasibly used as a main solution, and the intention was to use it in addition to the main sewerage system. Chris Easton, Head of Transport, Drainage and Compliance, stated that whilst he was unsure how often the cesspit was currently required to be emptied, once construction had finished the situation should settle down and become safer in regards to vehicle access.


Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether concerns relating to smell and the safety of road users when the cesspit was being emptied was a material consideration, queried why the cesspit has already been required to be emptied a number of time, and queried what the immediate consequences could be if the application was refused. Natalie Jarman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39