Agenda item

Proposal: Construction of 9no. dwellings, access, landscaping and parking

Location: 3, Drummond Road, Bourne

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions in the report

 

 

Proposal: Construction of 9no. dwellings, access, landscaping and parking

Location: 3, Drummond Road, Bourne

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions in the report

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

Against                           Thomas Harvey

Carl Harvey

Diane Stabler and Samantha Carvath -(TIMESHARE)

Agent                           Mark Collins

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036 and National Planning Policy Framework

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services (SKDC)

·       Comments received from LCC highways and SuDs

·       Comments received from Anglian Water

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

·       Comments received from Bourne Town Council

·       Comments received from Black Sluice Drainage Board

·       Comments received from National Grid

·       Comments received from Bourne Civic Society

 

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

 

·       A Public Speaker who resided next door to the site outlined the flooding directly out of the surface water drains.

·       It was felt the developer was ignoring the water course despite the LLFA expressing strong concerns, specifically requesting a solution for the drain along the western boundary. There was no modelling for the watercourse at present.

·       It was felt the application did not comply with Council policies or the NPPF.

·       Concern was raised on access to the site, boundaries, noise levels and BNG baseline.

·       That the water was coming from the Peak District via an aquifer and therefore the flooding was not linked to local weather conditions.

·       There were 2 historical issues with the site relating to incoming water and the 220mm borehole feeding into the site. The water going out was in Anglian Water’s drainage system through a 200mm pipe being fed from a 150mm pipe meaning the water level exceeded the level of the pipe.

·       Concerns had been raised from the lead local flood authority and was being investigated by the internal drainage board ombudsman.

·       2 public speakers raised their concern on the boundary fence. They were advised this matter was a private boundary dispute and not something for the Planning Committee to consider.

 

·       The agent had a background of working in drainage and would ensure there was no flooding to any proposed properties and to not increase flood risk to any nearby properties as a result of the development.

 

·       It was proposed to adopt a sub-base system using a permeable road to provide sufficient storage to hold water, which would be released via a manhole at the bottom of the site restricted to a flow of two litres a second.

 

·       A private management company would maintain the ditch in perpetuity.

 

·       There was a proposal to lay an alleviation pipe between the drainage system and the ditch itself to capture any water that overspills from the ditch. 

 

During questions to public speaker, Members commented on the following:

 

·       Clarification was sought on a photograph provided and whether it was the result of direct running water from the Dyke not being contained or a blockage, or whether it was direct runoff water from the field behind the property.

 

The Public Speaker confirmed it was not solely run off rain water from the field. The water came from a borehole at the other side of the field which runs from a 220mm diameter pipe into the watercourse and then into a 150mm section. This section is not able to keep up with the flow of water. It was noted there were ongoing challenges with Anglian Water. It was highlighted that the property would flood with no rainfall.

 

·       Clarification was sought around Anglian Water attending the property and the measures they had taken.

 

The Public Speaker had requested Anglian Water to attend and solve the situation numerous of times. He had also spoken to Highways drainage board, fire and police.

 

It was felt that Anglian Water surface water could not keep up with capacity and that resulted in the flooding.

 

·       A query was raised on current use of the land of the proposal site.

 

It was confirmed the land was grassland and had no public access.  The Public Speaker had no objection to dwellings being built on the land, the concern was around the flooding of his property.

 

·       Whether the neighbour had any discussions or potential reassurance that the proposed application and measures proposed would alleviate the current flooding issues.

 

It was highlighted that when the watercourse had reached its banks it would then flow down the access road into attenuation storage, this could provide a brief respite to the flooding, until the attenuation storage became full.

 

·       Clarification was sought on whether the proposal would make flooding matters worse.

 

 The Public Speaker noted there was no information on how water would stop being held in the watercourse from going into the permeable pipe. This may alleviate issues short term, until the attenuation storage was at capacity.

 

·       Whether an independent drainage strategy taking place would assist in the Public Speakers concern.

 

The Public Speaker confirmed a detailed drainage strategy would alleviate concerns, however, only if a firm solution was established.

 

·       One Member sought further clarification on noise levels.

 

It was noted that the original noise assessment assessed tarmac rather than block paving and therefore, decibel levels were incorrect. The ground floor habitable room would have a seven-decibel reduction applied due to a timber fence proposed. The length of the fence would not reach the front of the property, and therefore the decibel reduction would not be met.

 

·       Whether the developer could guarantee a solution to stop the following completely.

 

The Public Speaker felt an arrangement could be made to cap the borehole which would stop a significant amount of water coming onto the site. There could also be scope for the developers to adopt the maintenance of the pipe work to assist with water flow from it.

 

The Public Speaker could not see how the proposed development could be of any benefit in its current design to alleviate flooding.

 

·       A query was raised on whether there was any pattern to times of the year the flooding occurred in terms of data.

 

The Public Speaker clarified the original assessments had not considered the aquifer or borehole. Flooding had occurred during peak summer where there had been no rainfall meaning there was no link to weather conditions.

 

·       One Member asked the agent whether they should have considered a management company in place for the dyke prior to the planning process.

 

The agent clarified at the development stage, if any wild boreholes are found, they would be capped off. The developer would take responsibility for their half of the ditch.

 

·       Whether there was a further update on a drainage strategy in relation to the dyke and the road.

 

An updated strategy drawing showed an intersection pipe sitting between the ditch and the road itself so any overflow would be caught.

 

·       Further clarification was sought around the design approach from LCC SuDS approach outlined in the report.

 

It was clarified that LCC hadn’t fully analysed the detailed design of the strategy. SuDS only provided water treatment and did not include the flow into the ground.

 

·       A query was raised on the access road and whether the type of construction proposed was sufficiently strong for longevity for heavy vehicles.

 

The construction had been designed to allow heavy vehicles. A membrane would be installed at the bottom, followed by a sun-base which would provide a 30% void in the construction. A temporary tarmac running course would sit on top of the sub-base during construction phase. At the end of the development, granular sand would be laid down with sufficient voids and then a permeable block pave on top.

 

·       Whether LCC were the landowners of the site.

 

The agent confirmed he was not aware of LCC being the owners of the site.

 

·       A query was raised on why the land had not been developed before and whether this linked to the flooding.

 

The agent was unaware as to why the site had not previously been developed. It was noted the actual site itself did not suffer from any flooding.

 

The agent clarified the aquifer was a large void below ground soil that held water. Above the aquifer were clay soils which were stopping the water from coming up. The water was coming from artesian wells.

 

·       Clarification was sought around the intersection pipe.

 

The intersection pipe would be a perforated pipe which would sit at the bottom of the ditch. This would catch any overflow water and would be directed to the carriageway of Drummond Road.

 

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

 

·       That the local flood authority had very strong concerns on flood risk as a result of the development.

·       Members had serious concerns around the flood issues and felt they should be addressed prior to any development being approved.

 

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted the previous refusal was primarily due to noise and disturbance and access safety. This access came from the north of the site, rather than the proposed access for this application.

 

·       The Committee were concerned around all the conditions being met and fulfilled.

·       Concern was raised around SuDS comments and the permeable road ownership.

·       Further concern was raised on noise and vibrations.

 

A pre-commencement condition was proposed that would deal with surface water drainage and how that would be approved.

 

The Environmental Protection team, as a consultee had raised no objections to the application in terms of noise and vibrations.

 

It was confirmed a noise report had been submitted and was based on a smooth tarmac surface. An updated assessment was undertaken and clarified there would be an additional noise from a block paved surface.

 

A condition had been included in relation to boundary treatments making explicit reference to boundary treatments in attenuation fencing to reduce noise to the adjacent dwellings.

 

Final decision

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to REFUSE planning permission, for the following reason:

 

‘‘The proposed development is at an unacceptable risk of increasing the risk of flooding for neighbouring land and properties, which cannot be satisfactorily addressed through imposition of planning conditions requiring the submission of a detailed drainage strategy, contrary to Policy EN5 of the adopted Local Plan and Section 14 of the Framework. The material considerations in this case, including the provision of housing which would be given limited weight due to the small quantum proposed, and the presence of the tilted balance, would not outweigh the identified harms and conflict with the Development Plan.’

 

(The Committee had a 5-minute break).