Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting on 23 November 2017 be approved as a correct record.

None.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

Plans and Specifications submission under Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017 for an ecological mitigation scheme comprising earthworks, including one no. mitigation pond, two no. hibernaculum and one no. reptile basking bank, together with permanent fencing and one field gate.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer's recommendation.

Plans and Specifications submission under Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017 for an ecological mitigation scheme comprising earthworks, including one no. mitigation pond, two no. hibernaculum and one no. reptile basking bank, together with permanent fencing and one field gate.

Officers introduced the report and took the Committee through the plans. The submission also referred to the spreading of material across the site however this was not part of the plans and specifications be submitted by HS2 limited.

Officers have considered the proposal and made a recommendation for refusal for the following two reasons:

1.    That the design or external appearance of the works ought to, and could reasonably, be modified to preserve a site of archaeological or historic interest conservation value; and

2.    The development foes not form part of a schedule work, within the meaning of Schedule 1 of the HS2 Act, and that the development ought to, and could reasonably, be carried out elsewhere within the development's permitted limits.

Both of these refusal reasons were in the interests of preserving a site of archaeological priority and a nature conservation value. The default position was on the applicant to demonstrate how these two factors have been preserved.

In terms of ecology, the reason for the ecology recommend refusal stemmed from the assertion form HS2 that the site was recently ploughed in 2017 and in 2016. HS2 have indicated that communications with the land owner, however these communications have never been presented to the Council. The Council's records indicated that the last time this site was ploughed was in 2014. 2015 the site is now how it witnesses today, the site is an ecological site and naturalised. The applicant has not presented ecological assessments for the site, no surveys and no information regarding ecology. Consequently the default position is that the site needs to be preserved. A site visit had been carried out towards the end of 2017 and there was an acceptance that the site had ecological value.

Officer had concerns about locating a pond that could impact exiting locations. There was a lack of information in relation to those ponds.

Parliament through the Act had tasked local council with preserving a archaeology in nature conservation sites. In this instance there was lack of information to make this assessment.

Before opening the item for discussion, the Chairman informed Members that over the weekened he had recieved a letter from HS2's solicitors detailing legal arguments as to why the offcier's recommendation was wrong. It was adense legal document and there sought advice form the Boruhg solicitor. It is not disputed that the Council under schedule 17 do consider and give approval ro refusal on the grounds of preservation of site of archaeological or historic interest or nature of conservation value. It was clear that this clicked both boxes and in his opinion that it was reasonable for the Committee to take the view that it need more information to determine the risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Lorry route submission under Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017  relating to Cadent Gas HP06 North and South compounds off Harvil Road, associated with a gas pipeline diversion: M40 to Harvil Road.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer's recommendation, subject to the informative that the application is carried out in accordance with the Local Transport Traffic Management Plan.

Lorry route submission under Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017 relating to Cadent Gas HP06 North and South compounds off Harvil Road, associated with a gas pipeline diversion: M40 to Harvil Road.

Officers introduced the report which include submission for a lorry route. It was explained that the Council was being asked to consider a route for large goods vehicles (LGV) and for the approval of a route that would be subjected to more than 24 vehicles a day. There are two compounds and these compounds were inexistent and these were already being serviced without the need for more than 24 vehicles a day. The Local Transport Traffic Management Plan had informed officers opinion, although not formed part of this submission.

Members were informed that between mid March 2018 to April 2018, the estimated number of LGVs would be up to 40 per day during the construction of a gas pipeline. Officers confirmed that the traffic management plan was considered acceptable to officers in the highways department. A large percentage of vehicle will be coming from Skip Lane which will mean that there will be minimum action with Harville Lane.

Before opening the item for discussion, the Chairman reminded the Committee of the limited remit of the Sub - Committee, due to the Act of Parliament. He explained that conditions could not be imposed however informative could and action could be taken against breaches.

Members confirmed that in the report it stated that the works would take five days, and take place during the Easter holiday periods. However in the informative there was only reference to the traffic management plan. Members questioned whether this also concluded the works to be undertaken during the Easter holidays. Officers explained that in the future there could be numbers as high as 400 mentioned in the traffic management plan, however the approval will still be in the informative. Officers confirmed that it was not appropriate to specify that information in the informative as such however it links to the traffic management plan.

The officer's recommendation was then seconded, and upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer's recommendation, subject to the informative that the application has to happen in accordance with the Local Transport Traffic Management Plan.