Agenda item

The application was for the erection of a two storey building comprising 4 two bedroom flats with associated amenity space.

 

The application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of?Delegation. However, it had been referred for determination ?by the Executive Head of Regulatory as the owner of the site had been a Surrey Heath Borough Councillor within the last 4 years.

 

“UPDATE FROM PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 17 DECEMBER 2020

 

An email has been received from Mr. D. Allen requesting that the application be deferred until the January meeting. In summary, Mr Allen claims that the agenda report was received less than 48 hours before the meeting and so there has been no time to rebut anything, despite asking to see the report for the past 6 weeks. He states that in every point in the report there is a mistake or serious irregularity and so the applicant would therefore like the opportunity to remedy this. He is also critical of the case officer’s handling of the application.

 

Officer comment:

The agenda was published on the website on Friday 4/12 and so the applicant would have had sufficient time to consider its content. No report is made available until it is published. No substantive explanation has been given as to why the report is incorrect. In the opinion of the officers there are no valid grounds to defer determination of this application.

 

 

Consultation responses

 

The consultation response received from the Council’s Drainage Officer recommends refusal for the following reason(s):

 

-       Insufficient information provided for consideration.

 

-       The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the development won't affect neighbouring property, further details are required. This location does have a flood history and the development is proposed within floodplain. No development will be permitted without prior LPA approval of a fully detailed drainage proposal and flood mitigation scheme.

 

-       The dwelling is removing an area of floodplain that needs to be off-set by a respective reduction of ground levels elsewhere within the application site. Full details are required to indicate where land levels around the dwelling are being reduced to compensate for the loss of floodplain, providing evidence that the overall development will not displace potential standing flood water to neighbouring properties.

 

-       Applicant to retain any existing overland flow routes will across the proposed development site to allow for land to drain after a flood. The applicant needs to demonstrate that the development will not impede flows and will not cause any nuisance flooding to any neighbouring properties.

 

-       Applicant to provide a full site survey of the existing site topography showing the development boundary and an indicative grid of levels throughout the existing site, without any changes, to give an accurate representation of the current site conditions.

 

-       Applicant to provide a fully detailed drainage proposal drawing, clearly annotated with all proposed attenuation measures including any asset levels (cover, soffit and invert, as appropriate). All drainage proposals to be supported by construction details.

 

-       No pumped surface water drainage systems will be permitted.

 

-       There is no public surface water drainage system shown to be connected directly adjacent or within the property boundary. Details of the proposed off-site surface water connection to be provided, to include the route of the surface water connection, outside of the application boundary to its outfall (known Thames Water owned asset). Details of the discharge route to include pipe sizes, levels, locations of any on-line access chambers and any other known property or asset connections to the pipework.

 

-       Details of the existing, retained property surface water drainage systems to be provided.

 

-       Any new habitable buildings within the proposed development outline to have a minimum FFL of 62.1m AOD.

 

-       As the site is liable to flood, all foul drainage systems are required to have suitable protection to prevent surface water ingress. Full details of the foul drainage system to be provided.

 

-       Applicant is required to agree a suitable development schedule with the LPA to ensure that the drainage scheme is undertaken before any increase of risk including the retention of floodplain capacity, ensuring attenuation for the building footprint during construction, and for maintenance of overland flood routes that allow neighbouring land to drain. If the LPA agreed drainage scheme cannot be implemented prior to the building due to site constraints, a programme of temporary works will need to be agreed with the LPA to demonstrate that the working methods throughout the development period will not increase flood risk to neighbouring properties.

 

-       Maintenance schedule for the joint development drainage responsibilities will need to be provided once the fundamental scheme details are agreed with the LPA. The schedule details provided for consideration should replicate the documentation to be provided to all property purchasers and include copies of the approved drainage layout plan, construction details, and ongoing maintenance responsibilities. The maintenance schedule should clearly state the periodic maintenance required for all identity referenced assets and apportion the financial responsibilities for the properties served, should any expense be incurred by future repair or replacement work.

 

-       All agreed land levels to be maintained in perpetuity. All drainage systems, porous surfaces, attenuation volumes and floodplain mitigation assets to be maintained throughout the lifetime of the development.

 

-       Full site drainage and flood mitigation works to be completed, in accordance with final LPA approved drainage submission drawings, prior to first occupation.

 

ADDITIONAL REASON FOR REFUSAL

 

As such a reason for refusal on drainage grounds is proposed as follows:

 

6.    The majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 2.  In the absence of a detailed drainage proposal and flood mitigation scheme it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposal would be acceptable in flood risk terms in relation to the site and neighbouring properties.  As such the proposal would conflict with the objectives of Policy DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2011-2028 and the National Planning Policy Framework/Practice Guidance.

 

UPDATE 14 JANUARY 2020

 

The landowner has submitted a detailed Planning Rebuttal in response to the agenda report.  This has also been circulated to councillors.  The rebuttal criticises the content of the report and alleges that the case officer has thwarted the application process and failed to engage with the applicants. These comments are being dealt with separately. In the officers' opinion none of the matters raised change the planning merits of the proposal nor the updated recommendation as reported to the December meeting.”

 

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Mark Brown spoke in objection to the application and Mr David Allen spoke in support of the application on behalf of the agent.

 

The officer recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Graham Tapper, seconded by Councillor Cliff Betton, and put to the vote and carried.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

RESOLVED that application 20/0153 be refused for the reasons as set out in the officer’s report.

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                     I.      Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that:

                                       i.       the landowner of the site was known by himself and several members of the Committee; and

                                     ii.       members of the Committee had received correspondence from the landowner on the application.

                    II.      Councillor Darryl Ratiram declared that he would be voting in abstention on the application for the reasons that he had declared during the 17 December 2020 Planning Applications Committee Meeting.

Note 2

A roll call vote on the application was conducted and the voting was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the officer recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillors Graham Alleway, Cliff Betton, Colin Dougan, Shaun Garrett, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, Robin Perry, Morgan Rise, Graham Tapper, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.

 

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillor Peter Barnett

 

Voting in abstention on the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillor Darryl Ratiram.