Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr David Broker, the Agent.

Mr Broker expressed the opinion that there is only one reason that the Planning Officers have recommended the refusal of the application, which is that the site is within Flood Zone 3 and the sequential test has not been applied. He stated that officer’s will not accept the physical proof that the site is level from end to end, including that of the adjacent site to the south which is in the same ownership and which has current planning permission.

Mr Broker stated that the whole area was made up with topsoil 30 years ago long before Flood Risk Assessments and sequential tests existed. He added that he has commissioned a GPS base topographical survey by "RATCLIFFS" who are the same surveyors who carry out surveys for the Environment Agency and they have stated that they do not understand why the Planning Officers refuse to accept the proven facts, which they have previously supported in writing.

Mr Broker stated that over the whole area of the site the levels vary sporadically by only 6 inches and in general terms the site is flat and does not physically slope into Flood Zone 3 to the north. He added that it is all at the level of the approved site adjacent, which is Flood Zone 1, and, therefore, in

technical the terms the north end of the site is 3mms higher than the south end. He expressed the opinion that he contests the Planning Department's statement that the site is in Flood Zone 3 and that the sequential test hasn’t been applied as it is a physical and proven fact that the site is at the level of Flood Zone 1 and for that reason the sequential test does not apply in this instance. 

Mr Broker expressed the view that the proposal is not out of character with the large number of new houses on small plots along the north side of Friday Bridge Road, the application site is the same size and the proposed dwelling the same size as that approved on the adjacent site and he has proved that the site is above flood risk level. He stated that he would ask members to make their decision based on the physical facts and not the theoretical assumption of the rule book.

Members asked Mr Broker the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton asked Mr Broker to identify where Flood Zone 2 is, making the point that the plot to the south is in Flood Zone 1 and the plot to the north is in Flood Zone 3. Mr Broker stated that he did not know as the environmental mapping shows an area of dark blue, which crosses the road and to the north of the application site, and the only map which is available shows that Flood Zone 3 was at one point at the northern edge of the site in question. Councillor Sutton stated that he was also unsure as to whether Flood Zone 2 was located after reviewing the maps.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins stated that on the map and aerial photo that was shown there was a red line highlighted and he asked for an explanation as to its relevance? David Rowen advised that it is to denote the visibility splay for vehicles leaving the site and the visibility needed for up and down the road, so the visibility splays need to be included within the red line boundary. Councillor Meekins questioned that if a sequential test had been carried out would officers have recommended the application for approval? David Rowen stated that the sequential test has not been carried out and there are extant planning permissions and, therefore, plots for development available within the settlement.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked for clarity regarding the other properties, which have been built or are being built, on either side of the proposal site. David Rowen stated that the plot immediately to the south is in Flood Zone 1 and other plots that have recently been permitted on Friday Bridge Road are also in Flood Zone 1 and it is a narrow swathe of Flood Zone 3 which affects the proposal site.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked how old the extant planning permission are and when were they were approved? David Rowen stated that they range from over the last two to three years.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the neighbouring plots are in Flood Zone 1, which according to the agent has been taken out of the other zones and made into Zone 1 and asked as that issue is not reflected in the Environment Agency maps, if members approve the application because the land level is in effect the equivalent of Flood Zone 1, would that be wrong? David Rowen stated that planning policies at National and Local level, steer development away from Flood Zone 3 and, therefore, development should not be allowed in Flood Zone 3 unless a sequential test has been satisfied, including exception tests. He added that regarding the issue of whether the land level has been raised up to a similar level to those dwellings in Flood Zone 1 cannot be taken into consideration as the information that officers have to work with state that the site is in Flood Zone 3.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that the existing physical circumstances appear to disagree, and have proven to disagree, with the Environment Agency map and there could be the possibility that the maps used need to be updated. He stated that, in his view, he cannot see a difference in the actual levels of the proposed site to that of the neighbouring sites.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he finds it strange that there are continual concerns raised about a proposal of one dwelling in Flood Zone 3, when the typographical survey has shown that the land is the same if not slightly higher than the plot next door. He expressed the opinion that the proposed dwelling is at no more risk than that of the already constructed dwelling next door and referred to the presentation slides where he highlighted to members a competed dwelling which is in Flood Zone 1 whose floor level is lower than the level of the soil of the two plots in question. Councillor Sutton questioned the accuracy of the Environment Agency flood zone mapping system.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the points raised by Councillors Cornwell and Sutton. She expressed the view that the proposal is infill development, will tidy up the unsightly plot and there are many ways that dwellings can be built nowadays to mitigate the risk of flooding.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she agrees with the other members and added that there appears to be some disparity with what can and cannot be built in Flood Zone 3, as an application has just been approved for caravans to be sited in Flood Zone 3, yet a dwelling is not permitted.

·         David Rowen stated that it is important for a distinction to be drawn between the previous application containing caravans and the proposal currently being determined. He added that the site in Newbridge Lane was in Flood Zones 2 and 3, there was detailed modelling work available which demonstrated that should a flood event occur that site would not be at risk of flooding, whereas that level of information is not available in this instance.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that any modelling that took place on this application would only identify that there was not a risk to the proposal.

Proposed by Councillor Cornwell, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, subject to reasonable conditions being applied.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the physical flood zoning map has not been kept up to date with regard to the actual events on the site and there is no difference in the levels on this site compared to other sites in the vicinity which are being developed and they believe the site is viable as far as flood risk is concerned.