Agenda item

Field OS 3300, Oakham Road, Somerby

Applicant:     Hazelton Homes And Mark Curtis Bennett - Mr Tom Hazelton

Location:      Field OS 3300, Oakham Road, Somerby

Proposal:     Residential development for up to 31no dwellings (re-submission of 16/00100/OUT).

 

(a)       The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that:

We have received a request for deferral from the applicant on the grounds:

•           Absence of a response of the LLFA in terms of establishing any existing flood risk from ground water and surface water at the site. Given that the issues revolve around whether or not the Site is at any existing flood risk with regard to surface water and/or groundwater (and therefore whether the Sequential Test is potentially applicable), it is clearly important for the LLFA’s position on that point to be known as they are statutory body responsible for managing the risk of flooding from surface water and groundwater in the area.

•           To consider the wider implication for the Emerging Local Plan if allocated sites are vulnerable failure of any Sequential Test not just in the Somerby site but potentially other sites within the Borough.

 

An objector has responded expressing the view that we have had sufficient time to consider the application, sufficient information has been provided and we are able to make a fully informed decision.

The HoRS expressed the view that it is a close cut case. Whilst the LLFA would bring a further perspective we do not consider we are lacking in understanding, otherwise the report would not have been published.

 

He commented that if we proceed:

•           Applicants consultants advise that the site is not at risk of flooding from any source. This is a view shared by both the EA and the LLFA. On the basis that the site is not a risk of flooding, it clearly would pass any sequential test or approach applied to it.

•           Application of the Sequential Test: The starting point is the NPPF, being a statement of government policy which was subject to consultation prior to its publication and, before amendment, requires consultation. PPG (which of course can be changed at any time), cannot usurp the NPPF; it is a guide to the application of the NPPF.

•           We are dealing with “decision-taking” rather than plan-making.  On “Avoiding risk” PPG states that, in decision-taking, LPAs should apply the “sequential approach” which “involves applying the Sequential Test for specific development proposals and, if needed, the Exception Test for specific development proposals, to steer development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding”. Clearly, on any interpretation of that paragraph, if the development passes the Sequential Test it accords with the sequential approach. This should be conclusive.

•           “This general approach is designed to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding from any source are developed in preference to areas at higher risk”. Even if this is applicable to decision-taking the site is clearly, at worse and on the basis of the Third Parties evidence comprising photographs, at “little” risk of flooding from any source; we are not simply not at a significantly higher risk of flooding than other sites in Somerby.

Somerby PC

SPC maintain that this site is inherently unsuitable for housing development due to historic and continuing flooding and flood risk on and adjacent to the site.  This flooding has been documented and photographed by residents and is explained by geological survey.  The water table at this site and in the immediate surroundings is high (˂ 3 m) so the resulting flooding is due to ground water.  The placing of housing at this site is analogous to dropping blocks of concrete into a full bath - it floods the floor, due to displacement - an example of Archimedes principal.  The same will happen to building on this site forcing the same volume of water up from the ground as the volume of the developments total foundations.  Thus increasing the probability of flooding downstream of the development as the letter by Farrow Walsh indicates the new development will itself be protected by raising floor levels, but makes no provision for neighbouring threatened properties.

Many of the authorities involved have based their assumptions on the Environment Agency maps.  However the Agency admits that these may now not be accurate, especially in smaller localised areas.  We have always maintained that this site should have NEVER been accepted by Melton Borough Council (MBC) as a SHLAA site on the grounds of flooding and flood risk, as it floods most years during the winter/spring.  The National Planning Policy technical Guidance (NPPG) 2014 states that in areas such as these the Sequential Approach as distinct from the Sequential Test should be applied when drawing up possible development sites.

NPPG. Para 18:

“This general approach is designed to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding from any source are developed in preference to areas at higher risk.”

This is to be achieved by applying the steps Assess – Avoid – Manage & Mitigate, in that order.

 

It is clear that the applicants are attempting to ‘manage and mitigate’ the flood risk by a Drainage Strategy which is based on a ditch that does not yet exist, a flow that is not yet measured, and block paving that silts up over 10-12 years in a rural area.  We assert that it is the responsibility of MBC is first to assess and then avoid flood risk, regardless of any potential drainage strategy which may or may not arise in the future.  In Somerby there are other sites which do NOT flood and on these grounds this site should be removed as a SHLAA site and any development at this site refused.

 

Additional objection:

An Urban drainage system is not suitable for a rural as permeability performance drops off dramatically in the first 8 to 10 years to point where normal rainfall will be passed through but storm falls will flood on the surface. The width of the gaps between the blocks makes little difference to the speed of the permeability reduction. Dirt from rural roads will cause the joints to fill and stop draining.   

The weakness of this application is the reliance on plans from Environment Agency and the Local Lead Flood Authority. E A say that their information is not address specific and the only reliable information is on site. The LLFA have said they were not going to update their maps.

 

(b) Cllr Lynne Camplejohn, from the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Lack of transport and employment opportunities

•           Flood risk

•           Unsuitable for development

•           High water table

•           Increase of flood risk on nearby properties

•           Local Plan states 7.7 years not 2 year housing land supply in 2016

•           44 homes have been allocated to Somerby, along with other planning applications this proposal would take it to 104 which is more than double.

•           Somerby floods regularly

•           Drainage strategy is not adequate

•           Other sites are available with lower flood risk

 

(c) Carl Powell, speaking on behalf of objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Application is 20 months old and there has been an abundance of time for all evidence to be submitted and a decision to be made

•           Resubmission is identical to original application

•           300mm standing water demonstrates risk of flooding

•           Application is situated in the high risk area

•           Highest ground water

•           Site is worst and highest flood risk

•           Other sites with lower flood risk are available

•           Drainage strategy would increase flood risk to nearby properties

 

The Chair asked Members if they would suspend standing orders to allow the applicant to speak. It was unanimously decided that standing orders would be suspended.

 

(d) Mr May, on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           The location is Sustainable

•           The development is in accordance with the emerging Local Plan

•           It is in line with NPPF

•           The site at no risk of flooding

•           Site not within flood zone or drainage area

•           No objection from the LLFA

•           Environment Agency state that at sequential test is not applicable

•           Not at risk of ground waste flooding

•           If a full response from LLFA is appropriate ask that application is deferred

•           No concerns from technical consultees

•           Unqualified risk of flooding

•           No risk of flooding on nearby properties

•           Site is not higher risk

 

The Chair asked how deep the geophysical survey number is.

 

Mr May stated that it was 5-7m historically.

 

A Cllr asked what the date of the survey is.

 

Mr May stated the numbers are from the 50s/60s.

 

A Cllr asked if the LPA has requested a sequential test.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services confirmed that one had been requested following the conclusions of the report..

 

A Cllr had concerns that the ditches had not been cleaned out properly.

 

(e) Cllr Leigh Higgins, the Ward Councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Powerful local knowledge

•           Ground is slightly raised and rainwater flows down

•           Site owner should have cleared ditches

•           Sequential test needed to be done and reviewed

•           Flooding concerns

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded to points made by the Parish Council and stated that there is a requirement for 49 homes but 104 have been allocated, this is 2 sites and a reserve site. In terms of the SHLAA assessment, the measure applied to discount sites is whether it is in Flood Zone 3B however this site is in Flood Zone 1.

 

A Cllr was concerned that a sequential test had not been done and that there was a risk in refusing without having one.

 

The Chair advised that it was the applicant’s responsibility to provide a sequential test.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that a sequential test had been requested and advised that the Members could defer the application to allow one to be done, or refuse as it is a shortcoming.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to defer the application in order to secure a sequential test and get everything right.

 

Cllr Botterill seconded the proposal to defer and stated it was pointless making a decision without a sequential test. The ditches are not maintained and there is a flood problem.

 

A Cllr stated that there is a serious flood risk despite a sequential test

 

A Cllr asked if the LPA were able to demand a sequential test.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that the applicant can decline to submit a sequential test or challenge that one is required. It is concluded in the recommendation that a sequential test is needed.

 

A vote was taken. It was unanimously decided that the application should be deferred.

 

Determination: DEFER, to allow for the submission of a Sequential Test and its subsequent consideration.