Agenda item

Land Off Measham Road Moira Swadlincote Derby DE12 6AA

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

Town Councillor S McKendrick, Chair of Ashby Woulds Town Council, addressed the Committee.  She explained that the local residents had a number of concerns which she addressed in turn.  The proposed increase in roof levels would intrude on the privacy of the neighbouring gardens due to overlooking.  The risk of flooding was also an ongoing concern as water levels were often high in the area, especially since the development had begun and this was well documented.  Gardens and service roads had been flooded recently on three separate occasions and it seemed that the developer was not doing anything to ease the problem.  Councillor S McKendrick stated that there had been no consultation with the local residents by the developer and there was a fear that there would not be any kind of consultation in the future.  She acknowledged that there was no obligation on the  applicant to do so, but felt that if residents had been consulted then a better solution could have been found.

Mr R Redfern, objector, addressed the Committee.  He believed that the increased floor levels were adopted without thought of the impact to the flood risk and the height increase was unsympathetic to the surroundings as well as overlooking the neighbouring properties.  He also believed that the proposal contravened a number of planning policies and the developers had not followed national guidelines regarding flood risks.  He added that in the past, flood water had been so severe that it required a pump to run 24 hours per day for 6 months to disperse the water.  He suspected that the increase in floor levels was as a result of the flood risk and not to meet building regulations as proposed. He was of the view that the flood risk assessment undertaken in 2016 should be made void and that a new assessment should be undertaken. He also explained that the development would have a detrimental impact on resident’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property and urged Members to refuse.

Mr P Stone, agent, addressed the Committee.  He reported that the scheme had evolved over a number of years and had full planning permission which could not be reversed, this included drainage systems and other agreed conditions.  He added that the flooding risks and drainage scheme had been subject to a robust assessment and subsequently approved by the Environment Agency.  Regarding the floor levels, he insisted that the increase was to meet building regulations and was merely a slight change.  He explained that there was a distance of 60 metres between the plots at the back of the site and the nearest properties, which he set out was the same distance as the width of a football pitch, twice the width of the car park at the Council Offices, and three cricket squares end to end.  He believed that this was a considerable distance and therefore not a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.  He reminded Members that the application was for minor amendments only, that there was no loss of amenity and urged to permit.

Councillor D Harrison moved that the application be deferred due to his concerns regarding the flood risks.  It was seconded by Councillor J G Coxon.

Councillor J Legrys spoke in support of the motion but asked for assurances that discussions would be held with the developer as applications often came back to Committee after a deferral without any amendments. He explained that the rise in water levels lead him to believe that the developer did not have a proper drainage system in place. It was his opinion that the developer was attempting to move the responsibility of dealing with the flood risks away, currently to Moira Furnace which now experiences flooding.

Councillor G Jones commented that when the development was approved it had great potential but it had turned out to be very poor with very little consultation between the developer and residents.  He supported the motion to defer the application.

Councillor J Geary endorsed the comments already made by Members.  Regarding the increase in floor levels, Councillor J Geary asked why the Building Regulations 2010 had been ignored even though the first application for planning permission was made in 2012, two years after the Building Regulations had come into force, and when the subsequent application for full planning permission was granted in 2013. He also questioned why the developers were only making the application now. 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that although planning permission had already been granted, the officers could still go back to the developers to make sure that the flood risk was tolerable, therefore he would not be advising Members against deferral if they were minded to do so.  In response to Councillor J Geary, he reported that building regulations do change regularly and this was likely the reason for the amendment at this time, this was something he would check if Members decided to defer the application. 

Councillor J Geary replied that the Building Regulations 2010 in question were in place before the planning permission was approved and if Members were to defer the application, he would appreciate an explanation as to why planning permission had been granted if the development did not meet building regulations when it was brought back to Committee.

Regarding the landscaping as detailed at condition eight within the report, Councillor J Geary expressed his disappointment that it was for five years only as in the past trees and other planting had been removed from development sites after this timeframe. He stated that the requirement should be in perpetuity.

Councillor J Clarke did not agree with comments from the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding making sure the flood risk was tolerable as he was sure that residents would not find any kind of flood risk tolerable.

Councillor J Coxon felt that it was important to listen to the residents’ concerns and was pleased that the planning team were prepared to revist this matter so that residents were not adversely affected. He supported the motion to defer the application.

Councillor J Legrys asked that the discussions with the developer be opened up for local residents and the Moira Furnace Trust to attend.  He also asked for information to a future meeting regarding whose responsibility it was to maintain SUDS, which was an issue that had been raised previously.

Before the motion was put to the vote, the Chairman asked Members for reasons for deferral.  It was agreed that the reason for deferral was to allow more information to be obtained from the developer regarding mitigating the risks of flooding.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application deferred to allow more information to be obtained from the developer regarding mitigating the risk of flooding.