Agenda item

BH introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Baker, due to flooding issues in this area.  A previous application was dismissed at appeal, because the proposed garage was not positioned a minimum of 2m from the boundary wall and 8m from the site entrance, to facilitate the efficient movement of overland storm water flow,  in accordance with the engineer’s advice.  Since that time, there have been some significant redevelopment of flood alleviation measures at Cox’s Meadow, lowering the access road for College Gate,  and additional mitigation measures, which have resulted in officers concluding that this proposal will not add to the flood risk.  This view is endorsed by CBC’s engineer, and the recommendation is therefore to permit.

Public Speaking:

Ms Helen Woodward, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

College Gate is low-lying basin, vulnerable to surface water flooding of over900mm  - 3 foot – as shown on the flood risk map.  This is water from the sky, not the river; College Gate acts as a catchment area, and CBC engineer’s opinions regarding the  River Chelt are therefore irrelevant.  The report is illogical and unreasonable. Building a garage so close to the weakened flood defence wall makes no sense – it will obstruct the natural course of flood water.  There has been no flow analysis and officer comments are simply based on opinion.  The applicant has offered three absurd mitigation measures: a stepped kerb to facilitate surface water running down to the collection chamber rather than past the garage; installation of a drain to catch the small amount of water run-off; and upgrading of the boundary wall, though not its weak foundations.  The gap for maintenance proposed between the garage and flood defence wall proposed is too narrow.  Members should ask Officers exactly how the River Chelt flood alleviation scheme will reduce the risk of flooding, and ask the Environment Agency for further clarification.  A letter from applicant’s own engineer does not take into account some crucial material considerations, and would therefore urge the Committee to consult with the County Council on the potential effect on surface water of this proposal. 

Mrs Yapp, applicant, in support

The external design of the proposed garage is similar in style to that at No. 5 College Gate, and the building materials match the house and the rest of the College Gate development.  The planning officer recommendation is to permit, based on a positive analysis of the proposal.  His report summarises the flood mitigation measures which have taken place over the past ten years, since 1992 and 2007.  Four neighbours have objected.  Three are concerned about the increased flood risk to their properties, but the comments of the land drainage officer distributed to Members this week confirm that the proposed garage will not increase the flood risk to the area.  One neighbour is concerned about the raised kerb and the effect of this on the flow of water, but the raised kerb is limited to the bins and recycling area only; the flow of water is over the front garden of No 1 College Gate, and into the collection chamber in the rear garden, as shown in a letter from Richard Strauss Associated submitted as part of the application.  No water is diverted to any other property.  Other issues raised were taken into account by the officer and summarised in his support.  Has lived at No 1 College Gate for 24 years and has not suffered from any natural surface water flooding.  In 2007, the drainage system of College Gate was coping until Cox’s Meadow overflowed, and the problems which caused that have now been resolved. 

Member debate:

SW:  would like some advice from officers regarding the flood issue, as this is the nub of the discussion between the objector and the applicant.  Doesn’t quite understand where either is coming from.  If flooding is already an issue there, will one additional garage cause such tremendous problems?

MJC, in response:

-       the analysis in the report sets out the reasoning used by officers to reach their decision.  The 1992 appeal decision stated that the positioning of the proposed garage did not meet the required distance of 2m from the boundary wall and 8m from the site entrance to allow water to flow past the garage and not back up beyond the site entrance:

-       since the 1992 refusal of planning permission due to flood issues, a lot has changed – there has been a lot of development in the area, and the current decision must fall back to this;

-       officers required the applicants to demonstrate the change in circumstances, which they have done as follows:

-     the lowering of the road to encourage water to flow along College Gate;

-     flood mitigation measures at Cox’s Meadow;

-     some mitigation measures to direct flows to College Gate to the collection     chambers and then to the river;

-     there is a wall to protect properties in Keynsham Road;

-       officers need to be sure that the proposed development won’t make the situation worse, and the drainage engineer’s comments are quite comprehensive about that, taking into account the fact that it is in Flood Zone 3, proximity to the River Chelt, Cox’s Meadow, and the flood defence wall;

-       the question must be whether the garage will significantly increase the flood risk to College Gate; officers cannot argue that it will.  This is the judgement Members have to make.

BF:  cannot see that building a garage will increase the risk of flooding, but wonders why this proposal has not been run past Gloucestershire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

KS:  this is the sort of application for which she wishes she had some background knowledge in flooding issues.  Was councillor for this area in 2007 when Cox’s Meadow failed spectacularly, and three properties flooded – it was very fast and the force of the water was very frightening.  Is not sure how this garage will affect the situation.  The area is on a level with the natural bed of the river, the lowest point of the River Chelt, and is interested to know whether a lot of surface water in the town, coming down the road, would be pushed into someone else’s property as a result of the garage at No. 1.  Is confused, despite knowing the area well.

MJC, in response:

-       to BF regarding comments from the LLFA, a proposal of this small scale is outside its remit – it only considered major developments, rather than householder ones, which are left to be dealt with at local level by CBC’s land drainage engineer – as in this case.  The last application considered by the LLFA was Pittville School – which indicates the scale of the schemes it comments on;

-       to KS, CBC’s land drainage engineer is well-qualified to give sound advice.  If/when water is coming from London Road, the proposal is trying, through a reduction in the road levels, to encourage it to find a natural course.  The 8m/2m gaps allow water to flow freely;

-       this application won’t affect that.  It allows water to take its route and flow its natural course.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT