Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 November 2017 (Copy attached).

RESOLVED –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 24 November 2017 be approved as a correct record.

Councillor King declared a personal interest in Item 6 as a member of Aylesbury Society who had voted against the application in 2014. Councillor King also declared a personal interest that he worked part-time at a Funeral Directors. In both instances, he was open minded towards the application.

Councillor Bond declared a personal interest in Item 6 as the local member for Watermead.

Erection of a crematorium with access road, bridge, car parks and ancillary works and associated landscaping (Part-retrospective planning application following quashing of original application)

Contact Officer: Neil Button 01296 585182

The planning officer presented the application to members of the committee and advised members that the quashing of the previous decision required fresh consideration of the application.  Irrespective of the fact that the application before members was now retrospective in nature – the officer reminded members that they were required to determine the application as they would any other.

The planning officer also took members through the amendments set out in the corrigendum.

The Committee heard from those who had registered to speak. Key themes raised by those who spoke in objection to the application included:

·                    the need for two crematoria not demonstrated

·                    maintaining the amenity land and the s52 Agreement

·                    concerns regarding the travel plan

·                    concerns regarding the officer’s report and whether it applied key policies such as paragraph 109 of the NPPF and the officer’s approach to landscaping

·                    concerns over flooding, highways and pedestrian access,

·                    Sequential Testing,

·                    the impact on Watermead residents and the town centre

·                    views of the crematorium from existing houses

·                    concerns regarding air pollution

The speaker in support of the application and the Applicant spoke on the following matters:

·                     excellent location for a crematorium

·                     Watermead was built over 30 years ago and since then lots of development had taken place.

·                     planning officers have been thorough.

·                     case is even stronger for two crematoria since the application was first considered – Chiltern 3^rd busiest in the country with waiting times.

·                     no air pollution with new crematoria.

·                     on average no more than 4 funerals a day at full operation.

·                     76 parking spaces is sufficient.

·                     over 1000 sites considered and this is probably the most sustainable site for a crematorium.

·                     the most experienced developer in this field and the Environment Agency agreed with the approach adopted.

After hearing from each speaker, Members had the opportunity to ask the speaker questions on points they had individually raised.

Members had technical questions for the officers from AVDC, BCC Highways and Sustainable Drainage Services (SuDS). Key questions raised by Committee Members for officer response included the following:

·                     Land use class when the restaurant was in situ

The Officer advised that the land use class was A3 restaurant since its demolition the officers have considered the site as a cleared brownfield site as set out in paragraph 9.16 of the officer’s report.

·                    Impact flooding would cause on the car park capacity and potential knock-on effect of roadside parking on the Spine Road and Prince Rupert Drive

Officers had liaised with the Environment Agency (EA) regarding the risk of flooding and the outcome was that the EA was satisfied with the application. No issues had been raised by the EA regarding the surface water in Balloon Field and it was felt that any current excessive surface flooding could not be attributed to the development. The Committee was also advised that the application contained a flood management plan that took into account different scales of flooding including those that were deemed relatively unlikely (1%).

Officers advised that parking on the Spine Road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 14/01010/AOP relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a residential development of up to 135 residential dwellings.

Case Officer: Sue Pilcher 01296 585413

This application was withdrawn from Committee as Aylesbury Town Council withdrew their objections to the scheme.