Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published. She highlighted that an officer update had been circulated regarding the Environment Agency’s updated flood risk mapping. The outbuilding remains in flood zone 3, flood zone 2 has been extended and the main dwelling on the site now sits within flood zone 2.

There was one public speaker on the item: an objector.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points (a printed copy of his speech and a Three Counties flood risk assessment was provided to each Member):

·         A number of issues with the application had been raised with officers but responses had not been received or the responses received had been unsatisfactory and shown a lack of duty of care.

·         The previous building of a garden house built under permitted development for garden outbuildings should have been subject to full planning.

·         Hatherley Brook was described by the applicant as ‘a stream’ with no history of flooding but another neighbour’s representation had noted flooding within the garden of 103 Shurdington Road recently and footage of the brook showed that at its full it was a ‘raging torrent’.

·         The building would be on flood zone 3 and increase the danger of flooding due to displaced water. Flood resilience measures such as flood protective material had not included in previous building of the garden house.

·         The application was incorrectly submitted with trees shown in the wrong places or missing.

·         If the annex is being built due to the need for additional space for a family member the applicant could have applied to do a loft conversion with the rear extension as was done at 101 Shurdington Road.

·         The Environment Agency requires that developments must consult with planning departments to gain permissions and licences, and permission must be asked if building within 8 meters of a flood defence. This was not followed during the building of the garden house.

·         The proposed tin roof does not reflect the character of the surrounding area, with other properties using clay tiles or concrete interlocking. The roof will look like a factory and increase noise for surrounding properties during heavy rain.

·         The flood risk assessment used is incorrect as the site plan does not show the rear extension correctly, nor the large, raised patio area which adds to water displacement. An enforcement investigation has been requested.

·         Damage to properties has occurred from flooding and been reported to the Environment Agency. A footpath on the Merestones Estate has washed away, and a retaining wall was washed away when South Acre Lodge flooded.

·         The elevations included in the application were incorrect and shown as higher against neighbouring land than reality. Drainage was also not identified, and concern was raised that this could lead to the brook being polluted and foul air invading nearby gardens, affecting health and welfare.

·         The development could be used as a rental property bringing extra vehicles to the property and leading to increased safety risks. The new garden wall would reduce sight lines and could lead to incidents with a cycle path for the new high school.

·         The objector asked for it to be recorded that points 13 to 17 of his objection were not read due to time limits.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

·         The Environment Agency were consulted, and their response was that the site did not meet their consultation checklist, so they did not provide a detailed response to the consultation. The council’s Drainage and Flooding Officer did provide comments and raised that the development is within a functional flood plain and that the floor levels are not above the estimated flood level. They acknowledged that the building is ancillary so occupants of the annex could evacuate to the main building in case of flooding. If the building roof was lowered it would fall within permitted development rights, which includes no requirement for officers to give regards to flooding.

·         The applicant’s submission meets the council’s validation requirements. Officers have considered the application accurate enough to consider and submit for decision.

·         Trees aren’t protected, so if they have been removed consent is not required.

·         The planning officer did visit the site and did not identify any concerns over loss of amenity. A land level survey was not required for this type of development.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

·         They did not identify any real planning objections to the proposal as it is extending what is already there. As the area to be filled is already hard standing they did not believe this would increase flood risk.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

For: 5

Against: 0

Abstentions: 3

Voted to permit.