Agenda item

Residential development comprising 7 new dwellings with ancillary car parking. (As amended 25/02/21 by Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Strategy and revisions to Plot 1). (Variation of Condition Nos. 2 and 10 of Planning Permission No. P/VOC/2022/02389 to substitute approved plans for a revised layout, and revised house and garage types and designs).

 

The Case Officer updated the committee on the following:

·       Officers had received further representations regarding Policy Chase 7, non-consultation with AONB and concerns over groundwater.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the proposed design of dwellings, the illustrative plan, and the indicative street scene. Members were also provided with details of the drainage strategy as well as the flood extent comparison. The Case Officer also discussed flooding on the lane and assured members that the site itself wasn’t subject to flooding.

 

Alister Trendall, Project Engineer, reiterated to members that planning had been approved on a previous application. He assured members that the applicant had addressed concerns and that the proposal was on an area which had a low flooding risk. He also highlighted groundwater flooding to members and confirmed that an acceptable water surface management plan had been carried out.

 

 

Public Participation

Residents made their representations to committee, objecting to the proposal. They raised their concerns regarding the current regular flooding of the site and felt that the flood risk assessment was subject to water runoff. Objectors felt as though the flood risk hadn’t been considered as highly as it should’ve been and felt that the probability rate of flooding was much higher than presented in The Case Officer’s report. They also felt that insufficient weight had been given regarding groundwater flooding and that an increase in discharges of groundwater would be detrimental. Mr Mereweather informed members that the site was a catchment area to flooding and felt that on this basis, building should not be permitted and should be considered on higher grounds.

 

Objectors also discussed the heavy impacts on screening and privacy. Mr Romiger felt that the scheme needed to enhance privacy as the proposed would result in heavy overlooking. In addition to this, boundary fences were also a cause for concern and objectors felt that the proposal was contrary to planning policies. Mr McLean also spoke against the proposal. He discussed how the volume of water would impact the dwellings and the risk that would occur. He felt that the site would not be able to cope with the groundwater flooding and drainage would result in water being directly discharged onto road surfaces, causing significant damage. Objectors urged the committee to reconsider the proposal.

 

The Agent and The Flood Risk Consultant spoke in support of the proposal. Mr Clare discussed the flood risk mitigation and informed members that any surface water would be redirected to the south. He also discussed the location of the dwellings and felt that it had been demonstrated that the dwellings were above the flood line. The agent also addressed the committee and discussed hot the proposal improved the character of the area. Mr Moir also felt that there had been careful consideration undertaken regarding overlooking or loss of privacy. He highlighted to members that each dwelling proposed had a private garden and driveway. Mr Clare and Mr Moir hoped the committee would support the application.

 

The Paris Council and Local Ward Member also spoke in objection to the proposal. They strongly objected due to the development being situated on a flood zone and felt that the proposal should be on higher ground. Cllr Chick also discussed concerns raised by the flood warden and didn’t feel as though this should’ve been ignored. He felt that the application was unnecessary and was disappointed that there had been no solution to prevent surface water damage. Cllr Brown also discussed objections raised on behalf of residents and felt that planning shouldn’t increase risk of flooding elsewhere. The Ward member felt that if approved, this development would do just that. He also highlighted that flooding can be on different scales due to its location and felt that this was an example of that. They hoped members would reconsider and refuse.

 

 

Members questions and comments

·       Prevention of overlooking.

·       Clarification of policies from 2002

·       Mitigation for safety of watercourse.

·       Difference between groundwater and surface water flooding.

·       Management and drainage of attenuation tanks.

·       Clarification regarding flooding of the proposed development being worsened. 

·       Concerns that flooding would be worsened elsewhere if approved.

·       Concerns around sewage and drainage

·       Increases flood risk.

·       A motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr David Taylor. Members voted and the proposal fell.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Carole Jones, and seconded by Cllr Mary Penfold.

 

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval subject to additional conditions that:

 

·       Prior to the commencement of development details of foul drainage for the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall demonstrate how the development will connect to the existing foul sewage system, without overloading capacity and to prevent surcharge of sewage to the public realm and dwellings during times of peak flow. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented prior to the completion of the development.

 

Reason: To ensure adequate facilities are provided in the interests of flooding and pollution.

 

·       Prior to the commencement of any development hereby approved, above damp course level, details of the means of enclosure to the drainage features shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the development, and thereafter retained.          

 

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

 

In accordance with Procedural Rule 8.1 the committee voted to extend the duration of the meeting.