Agenda item

Planning application documents

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report, which related to engineering works to improve and level the playing surfaces of Burrows Field, Moorend Grove.  The proposal also included drainage works to improve pitch quality.  The site would be laid out to provide 6 ‘mini-soccer’ pitches, an adult pitch and two youth pitches along with a cricket square.   Planning permission was required for the engineering works to take place.  The principle of the proposal was supported and impact on neighbouring properties, appearance and ecology were all considered acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions.  There was an outstanding issue with regard to flooding and drainage, however the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) were in discussion with the drainage consultants and it was anticipated this would be resolved shortly. The application was at committee as the application was made by the council.   It was recommended that if members approved the application that the final decision be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee.

The Chair invited Mr Alan Bailey, a member of the public, to speak in support of the application.

Mr Bailey stated he lived in Shurdington Road in flood zone 3B, an area with a high risk of flooding issues.  He was in favour of improving the amenities but had concerns about changes to perimeter tracks, which had already been approved, which would result from improvement of the drainage of the playing field as it changed the level and layout of the pitches.  The two sustainable perimeter pathways for cyclists and pedestrians were not fully defined, had been approved without proper consultation and no plans could be found on the Council website.  He felt the poor design and material defined could increase flood risk downstream and stated all surfaces needed to be permeable to reduce the risk of flooding.  He felt there was a lack of consultation with the Environment Agency, Flood Prevention Officer and Highways and that the cycle track and sustainable pathway route around the area needed up-grading to align with the application to improve the drainage system.  Although in favour of the application, he requested to know how the council would manage the standards of the build required and how application 20/00332/FUL concerning the perimeter tracks would progress.

The following questions and points of clarification were raised by members with the Officer:

·         The relevance of fields in trust was asked.  The Officer was not sure where this was stated but confirmed that the land was the council’s responsibility.

·         Members asked where did water go now and where would the water go when the field was relevelled and drainage improved?  Would the problem be directed elsewhere? Was a SUD system going in or would water go straight into the stream/ brook?  What methods would be used to stop water going straight into the brook in order to give a drier field?  On all these issues relating to excess water, the Officer replied that this ultimately was the issue at hand as the proposals did cause concern that as the field became more waterlogged the water would ultimately be pushed into the stream further away and that was what they were trying to resolve – where it was directed to and how it would be controlled.  The Officer referred members to the flooding and drainage section of the report, stating that to avoid instances of waterlogging to the pitches a drainage design had been put forward resulting in runoff from the pitches being conveyed to the watercourse (Hatherley Brook).  The assessment also stated that ponds would be provided to increase storage capacity during periods of high rainfall.

·         Members asked whether the flooding issue was going to be considered by others and a decision made outside this meeting as it was not really something they felt they could consider at the moment when the Local Lead Flood Authority had not come to a conclusion. A member questioned why this application was being processed when they did not have the conclusion of the flood agents.  The Officer explained that there was a funding cut off time line for the works, so a timely decision would allow funding to be secured to enable the work to be carried out.   He continued that once a decision from the LLFA had been received, the matter would be deferred back to the Head of Planning and Chair and Vice Chair of the committee for discussion before final approval.   He also advised that they were working with a consultant who was advising on flooding issues.

There being no further questions, the Chair moved to debate and the following points were made.

Several members commented that it was a fantastic scheme and had huge support in the community.  The football pitch surfaces were poor and it was necessary to improve them and to provide good facilities for local sports people in the community. 

Many members acknowledged that flooding was an issue and that everything must be done to ensure that it did not result in homes being flooded.  Several felt they could not support it if there was an impact on neighbouring properties, so a cast iron solution was needed if approved.

A member suggested that sound engineering logic was needed and he feared the committee would not get the right advice and would need to be cautious about it, when they did.  He referred to previous issues with the LLFA and the consequences that then remained forever.  Another member also expressed not a lot of faith in the local flood authority and would want the input of advice from the council’s own flood experts into the alleviation scheme.

A member suggested this put a lot of responsibility, with pressure from all angles, on the Chair and Vice Chair to decide this if approved with delegated authority. 

The Chair reminded members that the application had come early to committee in order to secure the funding.   He acknowledged members’ great concern about the flooding situation and, if approved with the final decision being delegated to the Chair and Vice Chair, he assured members that he supported the comments about not creating flooding issues elsewhere and would check on that.

The ward councillor for the area of the Burrows Field supported the project in principle as it would enable significant quality uplift to a sports field, where the pitches were often water logged, and it was an important community resource.  However he was concerned that better drainage might actually increase flood risk elsewhere by more rapid rate of water run-off.  He confirmed about the watercourse, spoke about the ponds to increase water capacity and gave some facts and figures about the rainfall amount and recent flash floods in the area.  He expressed concern about the lack of information from the Local Lead Flood Authority and wanted clarification on what the engineering solution would be, as if the ground was saturated and the balancing ponds already full there would be little leeway and a flood risk.  He proposed that the LLFA and EA should be asked to endorse any solution proposed before proceeding; that what was agreed be explicit and transparent for the public; that conditions include that the engineering solution should mitigate against increased run off, and to ensure that the Council had covered all bases because of the potential unintended consequences downstream.  Finally he referred to the conclusion recommendation in the report, stating ‘subject to no objection being received’ and felt this was not strong enough and that it should be positively endorsed and also urged that the EA be encouraged to give a formal reply that what the council proposed would work and not cause a significant risk.  With those caveats he supported the application.

The Officer replied that the EA would not comment if it did not meet their criteria and threshold for comments and that the Council could not force them to do so.  However do have consultation with the LLFA and also a flooding consultant that can now turn to.  The Officer also referred to the point about ‘no objections’ stating the likelihood was that will get a comment that says no objection but will more than likely suggest conditions for appropriate solutions or works that need to take place or even maintenance procedures.

A member referred to the historic evidence that the ward councillor had provided on flooding and rainfall and suggested the committee should not be considering that as it affected the field as it was today and it was not job of the applicant to improve the situation, but to ensure it did not get any worse.  He said the committee should have all the information, as cannot vote on something that could cause further flooding.  However the drainage strategy referring to ponds and engineering methods to slow the water run off down, were more positive.  A deferment was suggested, even if it meant losing the funding, as difficult to vote on something that might cause flooding to someone’s home.

The Chair agreed to include the ward councillor in the final decision making and reminded members that the committee was being asked to give approval to the Chair and Vice Chair and Head of Planning, on the basis that they will look at the flooding issue as and when the information was received.   If members were not happy to give this responsibility to those mentioned, then they would have to vote against the scheme or vote for deferment.

A further member was happy with the debate and what he had heard, particularly with regard to the drainage strategy.  He wondered if the funding timeline was forcing the committee’s hand, but he was in favour of delegating responsibility.

A member challenged the comment about it not being the job of the applicant to improve the situation, stating he felt that it was, in light of the council’s commitment to climate change and wanted to question this with the Planning Officer.  Another member stressed that he meant more that the flooding situation should not be made worse.

The Head of Planning replied stating that he had not seen anything in legislation that made it incumbent on local planning authorities to improve a situation, the principle was not to make things worse.

The view was also expressed that the conditions on how flood alleviation would be achieved must be transparent and explicit for the public, when the scheme was approved.

The Officer confirmed that the Council owned the field and that ultimately it was the council’s responsibility and that’s why the application was at committee, although he felt it would probably have been called in anyway.

The Chair concluded that members could defer, refuse or approve on the basis that the flooding issue would be looked into further and authority be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee, together with the ward councillor.

The Chair moved to vote on the substantive motion of approval with delegated authority to the people mentioned above.   

For: 10
Against: 0
Abstain: 1

PERMIT