Agenda item

Residential development comprising 7 new dwellings with ancillary car parking. (With variation of Condition Nos. 2, 9, 10 and 12 of Planning Permission No. P/VOC/2022/05646 to substitute approved plans for a revised layout, house and garage designs, and surface water drainage).

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 elevations, indicative street scenes and site photographs were shown. Members were given details of the drainage strategy and were provided with a ground coverage comparison of a previously approved scheme with current scheme. The Case Officer informed members that the proposal was situated on an allocated site which was previously granted and complied with policy. Reference was made to policy CHASE7, part e; the implementation of a sustainable drainage solution that protects features and species of nature conservation interest, protects housing on the site from flooding and ensures that there is no increased risk of flooding to other land or buildings. The location was considered to be sustainable, and the proposal was acceptable in its design and general visual impact and there would not have been any significant harm to the landscape character of the AONB or on neighbouring residential amenity. The officer’s recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Mr McLean made a public objection as a neighbour who lived adjacent to the site. In his representation, he discussed the differentiation between surface and groundwater flooding as well as the impacts on the site. Mr McLean also discussed roadways and highlighted the history of the site. Noting that it had previously been refused due to flooding. He felt that the proposal contradicted advice which had previously been and urged members to refuse.

The agent thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak in support of the proposal. He noted that the proposed amendments resulted in a potential increase which varied across the units. There had been no change regarding the boundary treatments or impacts to neighbouring properties. Mr Moir also highlighted the surface water strategy and noted that there had been no objections raised by the flood authority. The proposal accorded with the NPPF and Local Plan, if approved it would not have caused harm to the character and appearance of area. He hoped the committee would support the officer’s recommendation.

Cllr Mereweather strongly challenged the officer’s recommendation. He did not feel as though the proposal complied with national policies and highlighted the distinction between ground water and surface water flooding. Cllr Mereweather informed the committee that a report had been commissioned from groundwater specialists and the results had been shared with the case officer and applicant. Identifying that there was a very high risk for the two properties. He did not feel as though the case officer acknowledged the reality of ground water flooding and that the NPPF guidance on managing flooding had been ignored, specifically paragraphs 116, 177 and 159 where it commented on an increase flood risk. Cllr Mereweather urged the committee to refuse or condition the proposal appropriately.

The Local Ward member reiterated the comments raised by concerned residents. Cllr P Brown highlighted the differences between ground water and surface water flooding, he felt that the application was dangerous and increased risk. The Local Ward member noted the applicant’s solution however he was concerned regarding the increase in surface water run off outside the development. Therefore, he encouraged the committee to consider the interest of existing and future residents. He urged the committee to turn down the proposal. 

Members questions and comments

• Clarification regarding the drainage strategy and prevention of flooding on the development.
• Concerns regarding flood risk increase.
• Questions regarding how members could have been assured that the varied conditioned wouldn’t have increased flood risk.
• Clarification that officers were satisfied with the hydrological assessments.
• Members felt that they had a responsibility for local residents and asked for assurance that both ground and surface water flooding had been considered.
• Questions regarding whether the redundancy in the drainage scheme would have been impacted.
• Following questions and the debate, members noted that. There were no planning grounds to warrant refusal.

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 permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Sherry Jespersen, and seconded by Cllr Belinda Ridout.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval.