Meeting documents

The Area Lead Planning Officer introduced the report, advising that since the application had been deferred in November 2014, further information had been submitted by the applicants, which had been circulated to the consultees.  He confirmed that there was no evidence to suggest that the proposed drainage would not be able to cope and the storage capacity of the attenuation pond was sufficient to cope with a 1 in 100 year storm plus an allowance for climate change.  His recommendation of approval remained.

The Committee were then addressed by Mrs M King-Oakley (Chairman of Curry Rivel Parish Council), Mr D Drake, Mr R Crowley, Mr G Higson, Mrs A Higson, Mr K Wilce and Mrs T Drake, who all spoke in opposition to the proposed application.  Their comments included:-

·         Information from the applicant had been posted on the SSDC website too late to allow a response therefore the application should be deferred.

·         There were still outstanding questions to be answered regarding percolation tests.

·         There was the possibility of future development in adjacent fields.

·         No home information packs had been submitted.

·         The flooding calculations were based upon 1 in 100 year storms but flooding had occurred in 3 out of the last 4 years. 

·         There was no information on how deep the attenuation pond would be nor how high the surrounding bund would be, or, who had the legal responsibility to maintain it.

·         The additional traffic which the site would generate would make a difference.

·         The loss of agricultural land should not be overlooked. 

·         The play area was less than 15m from the attenuation pond.

·         The existing drains did not have the capacity to cope with the rain water. 

The Committee were then addressed by Mr R Chadbourne who spoke in support of the application.  He said the flooding which had occurred was due to poorly designed drainage from the existing land and the large drains under the main road had only created a flood once in 30 years due to a lack of maintenance.  

Dr R Murdoch, a Hydrologist speaking on behalf of the applicants, advised that the site had a right of discharge into the current ditch provided that it did not increase the flow and the attenuation pond was sized to ensure this.  Following percolation testing, it was found the site was not suitable for soakaway drainage as the soil was clay.  The flood risk assessment met the requirements of the NPPF. 

In response, the Area Lead Planning Officer advised that:-

·         Conditions 10 and 11 of approval in the report dealt with surface water drainage.

·         It was unfortunate that some information from the applicants had not been posted onto the website promptly.

·         The applicants had assumed negligible water percolation at the site due to the clay soil.

·         There was no evidence of insufficient storage capacity in the attenuation pond.

·         No development sites were allocated in rural settlements in the emerging Local Plan but development was acceptable if the site was suitable.

The Ward Member, Councillor Terry Mounter, said the proposal was at odds with the emerging Local Plan which stated zero development in rural settlements.  He also questioned the capacity of the attenuation pond and its ability to cope with floodwater from the site.  He proposed that the application be refused as it was against policy and because of the impact on flooding, and this was seconded.

During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Some Members felt there was no demonstrated housing need in Curry Rivel whilst others expressed concern that if refused without sound planning reasons, the application could be granted permission on appeal.  It was also felt that more detail was needed on the attenuation pond capacity and an understandable guide to drainage in order to make a sound decision.

Councillor Mounter’s proposal to refuse the application was then put to the vote however it was not supported (voting: 4 in favour, 5 against, 1 abstention).  It was then proposed to defer the application for further clarification on the capacity and construction of the pond, its future management and a simple guide to drainage principles and strategy.  This was seconded and on being put to the vote, was carried (voting: 7 in favour, 2 against, 1 abstention).

(Voting: 7 in favour, 2 against, 1 abstention)