Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to condition five in the officer’s report and expressed concern over how the discharge of water will be dealt with as over the last 2 to 3 months that area has suffered from major episodes of flooding causing issues for those residents living in the vicinity and also flooding onto the highway. He made the point that due to the episodes of flooding it necessitated in the removal of large volumes of water being taken away by tankers and asked officers what guarantees they could provide with regards to having a robust enough drainage plan for the site? Gavin Taylor explained that the proposal for the drainage strategy is to rely on the underground storage crates to the south of the dwellings to attenuate the surface water and then through percolation to discharge the water as the site does currently. He made the point that, under Building Regulations Part H, it would need to be demonstrated that the site is conducive to percolation. Gavin Taylor stated if the application reaches the Building Regulation stage and it transpires that the proposal is not conducive to the strategy in terms of surface water then the condition in the officer’s report states that the development must accord with the proposed plans and, therefore, the applicant would need to bring a revised strategy back to the officers for consideration. He explained that, when considering foul drainage, the proposal is to discharge into existing foul sewers and the Internal Drainage Board have made a comment previously which states that it leads to their system and, therefore, there would need to be a consent built in there. Gavin Taylor added that, when considering the foul water, it would be down to Building Regulations to be satisfied whether the foul drainage aspect is achievable and if they are not satisfied then a revised strategy would need to be submitted. He explained that in regard to the latest Environment Agency map the site is shown to be in a low flood risk area from rivers and seas and also at a low flood risk area from surface water and there is no technical evidence to demonstrate that this would lead to any sort of additional significant flooding, however, the applicant would need to satisfy Building Regulations of that drainage strategy but the proposal is not dissimilar to what has been agreed on other schemes so there would be nothing from a planning point of view to indicate that it could not be accepted at the current time. Councillor Marks stated that he still has concerns that the properties built over the last 2 to 3 years have also gone through the same process of submitting plans but there has still been flooding issues and he asked whether there is any process before the foundations are commenced where a proper robust drainage plan can be agreed and implemented? Gavin Taylor responded that the committee would need to agree that what is in the officer’s report is not robust enough. He stated that officers are satisfied that the details submitted are adequate for a scheme of three dwellings as it is not a major scheme and there would not be the expectation for the Lead Local Flood Authority or Anglian Water to comment on as they only deal with major schemes. Gavin Taylor stated that if members are not satisfied that the submitted details are not robust enough to convince them that this is a satisfactory scheme then that would have to form part of their considerations when making their determination.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is not satisfied with the scheme, and it is well known that there have been issues with regards to flooding at that location and the application does not fill him with confidence. He stated that he is not confident that the percolation of the soil will work, and he is disappointed that the agent and applicant have chosen not to come before the committee to answer any queries and questions that the members may have. Councillor Connor added that he would like to see something far more substantial to be provided which would include where the connectivity to the main sewer was going to be. He made the point that the committee need to mindful of what has happened over the last 3 to 4 months and the committee cannot subject other residents to the flooding episodes which have taken place in recent times.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked officers to provide the distance from the site to the connection for the main sewer and for clarification that officers have advised the committee that the foul water will be discharged into the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) drainage system. Gavin Taylor referred the committee to the aerial photograph and pointed out that the buildings to the east of the red line site there is a foul sewer in that location and the run from that drain is looked after by the IDB, as they have indicated that in their comments to officers. He explained that the applicant would need to join that run under Part H of Building Regulations, but they would need to demonstrate how that would be achievable and what the flow rates would be, with the distance from the site to Martin Avenue being around ninety metres.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that it is his understanding that the site needs to be connected through the yard area of FACT, the community transport organisation, and he questioned whether that is correct and if permission has been sought. Gavin Taylor explained that would be a private matter and not a material consideration. He added that the proposal is to connect to the foul and if successful it would be in accordance with the plans as proposed and if that is not achievable because of either agreement or otherwise then the development would not be able to accord with those plans as proposed. Councillor Hicks questioned whether his understanding is correct that if that permission is not granted then the planning permission cannot be obtained? Gavin Taylor explained that planning permission has already been granted through the outline application stage and it is the reserved matters part of the application process which is being determined by the committee today. He made the point that it is the details which are being agreed today, however, the development would need to accord with those details and if that transpires not to being achievable then the applicant would need to come back with a further application to amend those plans.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that nobody appears to be content with the application before them today. He added that he is aware that Councillor Mrs French lives adjacent to the development site and he is aware of the issues that she has encountered over the last few months, and he cannot see how the application will not alleviate any of those concerns and, in his opinion, will add to those problems. He expressed the view that he would like to see a condition in place with regards to where the water is going to run to as he has serious concerns.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether officers are satisfied that the bin collection can be undertaken from the shared private driveway? Gavin Taylor responded that subject to the applicant obtaining the right agreement to place their bins at that location it is achievable in his view.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the applicant would need to get permission from whoever owns Woodville Drive, however, the applicant could engage with a private contractor to enter at the rear of KFC in order to service a bin collection.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that there is nothing that he likes with this application and the site is shoehorned in and he does not feel that the drainage strategy is at all suitable for what is there including the wastewater and sewerage. He stated that there is no access for the bin collection unless a private agreement is introduced where the waste can be collected from Woodville Drive and, in his view, there appears to be many assumptions with the application which makes it an incomplete application, making the point that it is disappointing that the applicant or agent are not present in order to answer the committees’ questions. Councillor Benney expressed the view that he has serious concerns with regards to the drainage at the site and he witnessed first hand the flooding issues that Councillor Mrs French and her family encountered which was very distressing to see. He added that he does not feel that the application should be approved just because it means somebody can make a profit and the residents who live near to the site must also be considered. Councillor Benney added that the site will not alleviate the flooding problems which this area suffers from which resulted in neighbouring properties pumping the water out onto the highway and the Police being called. He expressed the view that the application is incomplete and does not satisfy him in various aspects of the proposal and he feels that it should not be approved.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he agrees with the points made by Councillor Benney, and added that within the officer’s report it does make reference to a revised drainage and pump and sewerage plan which was submitted. He expressed the view that he does agree with the other members of the committee that the application is very questionable and more detailed information needs to be supplied.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that he also has major concerns over the proposal and whilst it appears that there is supplementary information concerning drainage it does not make it clear when that was undertaken. He stated that there have been episodes of flooding which have taken place since Christmas, and he made the point that the drainage information could have been compiled prior to the instances of flooding which took place. Councillor Marks made reference to the aerial photographs and expressed the view that they appear to be quite old as around the site there has been a lot more properties built which in turn has meant there is more land coverage of tarmacked drives, and he is concerned that all is going to happen is to make further problems for the local residents. He added that he would like to see the application deferred in order that the developer can be attend committee to answer their concerns and questions.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he would like to see drawings and drainage plans to demonstrate the connectivity in order that the committee have the confidence that the water and sewerage from the site can be dealt with properly and agreed that the application should be deferred in order for further information to be provided. He added that if permission cannot be sought to access over third-party land then the development will not take place anyway.

·         Councillor Imafidon agreed and added that he would like to see the drainage plans before any decision can be made. He made the point that he has been advised that the soil in that area is mainly clay and, therefore, careful consideration has to be given before a decision is made.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he is not happy to approve the application as he does feel that it is fit for purpose and asked officers to clarify that, if the application was deferred in order to give the applicant a fair chance to come back with the necessary documentation concerning the drainage schemes and how the water and sewage is going to be dealt with, would that be something that officers could work with as without that information he cannot see how the committee can consider the application. Gavin Taylor stated that, in order to gain a better understanding of what drainage information is required in order to satisfy members, a request could be made to ask where the foul connection point is and how that would be made from the site to the nearest connection point. He added that when considering the surface water, a request could be made with regards to the demonstration of the ground conditions being suitable for soakaways as proposed percolation tests as he is not aware that there are any Planning Officers who are qualified to be able to understand in-depth drainage information. Gavin Taylor explained that the applicant could submit drainage information from a qualified hydrologist or drainage consultant who could confirm that the ground is suitable for the proposed drainage strategy.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the committee need to see clarification for the discharge of foul water and whilst he appreciates that it is going through third party land, he would like to see some evidence that they have the permission to do so. The Legal Officer stated that the question can be asked of the developer, however, it is not a planning matter and advised the committee that it would not be prudent to do so. He added that if the applicant chooses to provide the information then that is their choice, but it is not relevant to the committee’s determination of the application.

·         Gavin Taylor asked the committee to clarify what further information is being requested with regards to the bin collection? Councillor Benney stated that he is not confident that there is access to empty the bins from Woodville Drive and he asked for a different scheme to be provided by using private collectors by accessing the properties from Gypsy Lane. He added that the applicant may also consider submitting an in-principle agreement that the landowners would allow the bin collection to take place from there.

·         Councillor Connor added that he would also like a request added for more information with regards to the sewer connection at the first available point.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERRED, solely on the grounds of drainage, foul water, percolation and sewage details together with the bin collection arrangements.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of approval as they require further detailed information concerning the drainage and surface water sewage arrangements as well as details concerning the bin collection for the site before they are in a position to consider the application further.

(Councillor Mrs French declared that she lives in close proximity to the application site and took no part in the discussion or voting on this item)