Agenda item

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 in relation to both aspects of recommended refusal reasons. This in the Chairman's opinion formed the view that in the absence of information that this should be permitted as the risks were not clear or understood. Questioned the completeness of the information provided.

The Borough solicitor summarised that the applicant's submitted that the application should be approved as there were a number of other processes and procedures which allowed for full archaeological or ecological evaluation to take place. The Act was only 13 months old there was an absence of precedent or case law which meant that a lot rested on interpretation. He advised that it was a dangerous precedent for a committee to consider an incomplete application. Reasonable inference that in the absence of sufficient information that the design or external appearance could be modified to preserve archolgoy and ecoglocial reason. The second refusal reason this was not a scheduled work and officer views that this work could be reasonable carried out elsewhere within the development's permitted limits. There is no other evidence to the contrary. Made it clear that his interpretation may be wrong, but he had adopted a common sense approach.

Members considered the reports and recommendation. Members questioned the limited details of the fence was provided and asked if there was more information that could be provided. Officers advised that the design of fence could not be considered under schedule 17. The act allowed comments for the root of the fence but not the design of the fence.

Members accepted the constraints of the HS2 act, the report before the committee gave grounds for refusal. There was clear case that the works could be modified and they were insufficient information to determine the risk and there was a possibility that the work could take place somewhere else. The application lacked evidence.

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

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