Agenda item

Land Off Measham Road Moira Swadlincote Derby DE12 6AA

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

Mr E Shephard, on behalf of Ashby Woulds Town Council, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that since the last meeting there had been an email exchange with the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA, but there had been no discussion between the developer and the residents. He stated that there were still serious concerns over flooding and that both the LLFA and the Environment Agency felt that the fence proposed by the developer would make no difference to the risk and instead stated that the developer should create a drainage system. He highlighted that the flood risk may have reduced on site but it had not reduced elsewhere in the village adding that water had already flowed down Heritage Way and asked how soon it would enter the properties. He suggested that new drainage should be installed to link to existing drainage. He felt that the 2013 flood risk data was flawed and raised concerns over the revised heights of the dwellings that would impact on the privacy of the five existing properties. He urged Members to consider the implications.

Mr C Sharp, objector, addressed the Committee. He expressed surprise that the application had come back so soon as there had been no discussion between the developer and the residents. He advised the Committee that the increase in height of the plots would provide a grandstand view into the existing properties, contrary to Policy E3. He highlighted to Members that the NPPF requires that no development should increase the risk of flooding and that the developer had said that the water was running off the field. He stated his view that a new independent flood risk assessment should be carried out and that the fence and gravel boards would make no difference. He urged the Members to reject the application so that an acceptable revised application could be submitted by the developer rather than defer it.

The Planning and Development Team Manager read out a letter that had been received from Andrew Bridgen MP.

The motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor V Richichi and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

A motion to refuse the application on the grounds of loss of privacy and flooding risk was moved by Councillor V Richichi and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor V Richichi stated that he understood the concerns of the residents as he felt that the proposed change of height would have an adverse effect on the privacy of the neighbouring properties and that the gravel boards would not have the desired effect. He sought clarification on the height of the banking that had been mentioned.

The Planning and Development Team Manager advised Members that there was no banking but a fall away from the fences back towards Plots 10 and 11 of 1m and that all the statutory consultees were satisfied that there was no surface water run-off or flooding impacts as a result of this development..

Councillor V Richichi expressed concerns over the conflicting issues around the flood risk as the speakers had stated that there was a flood risk given the potential water run-off.

Councillor D Harrison expressed his disappointment that no communication had taken place between the developer and the residents and that he had supported the deferral at the last meeting for that reason. He stated that he was uncomfortable with the proposed height but his main concern was the flood risk. He felt that the SuDs scheme would work once the development was complete but questioned what would happen in the meantime as he felt that it is unfair to the existing residents to suffer because the developer had not grasped what the Committee had said at the last meeting. He sought clarification from officers as to whether a bond had been placed on the highways.

The Planning and Development Team Manager confirmed that the applicant was currently working with Leicestershire County Council on a Section 38 application to adopt the road and that would include a bond.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he felt that the application should be refused on the grounds of flooding as he had concerns that it would not just affect the neighbouring properties but also the rest of Moria. He advised Members that there was evidence that the water level was higher at the Furnace and that the coal seams had been disturbed. He informed that the he could not support the application due to serious flood risks, the Victorian drainage had been vandalised and that he had no faith in SuDs, particularly their maintenance, adding that it was morally wrong as the developer was putting the problems onto the existing residents. He felt that the application should be refused as coming back after a month, the developer had not given any consideration to Moira and its residents.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he was disappointed that after being deferred at the at the last meeting to allow discussions it had not happened and that the application should be voted against as the developer had missed a chance to resolve the issues.

Councillor R Canny advised that flooding was one of her concerns but also questioned why the plots had changed from bungalows to two and half storey dwellings.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration clarified that officers had met with residents, representatives of Moria Furnace and the Town Council and had discussed that the approximate 60 metre distance between the backs of the new and existing dwellings was more than required, that it was not fair for the developer to be criticised because it had not specifically invited residents to a meeting, and that the developer had provided all the relevant information over SuDs, and there were no concerns from the EA or LLFA with the scheme.

In response to the question from Councillor R Canny, the Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that in the original plans  Plots 10 and 11 were two and a half storey designs and not bungalows.

Councillor N Smith queried the legal position as the development was already underway.

Councillor M Specht stated that the usual requirement was a minimum of 22 metres between dwellings however on the application before them there was a distance of 60 metres therefore the additional height would not be contrary to any policies. He felt that taking the technical information on board there was no reason to vote against the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor D Everitt expressed concerns over the flooding stating that consideration needed to be given to the changing water levels over the next 10-20 years and that flood risks needed to be considered earlier.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration felt that it was an excellent point and advised Members that assumptions were built into the calculations to allow for climate change.

Councillor J Bridges stated that there had been no arguments against the development in principle but raised concerns about the flooding risks. He felt that once the development was completed there would be no issues but expressed concern that no one including the LLFA has questioned what would happen in the meantime. He stated that management was critical He also advised that he was not at the last meeting but understood that the application had been deferred to allow communication between the developer and the residents to resolve major concerns with the development as the residents had no faith that the scheme would work once finished. He asked how the issues could be resolved if the developer was not willing to meet with residents and that he would support the motion to refuse as it was unfair on residents to be at risk from flooding, adding that the developer would not be in this position if they had all sat down together.

The Legal Advisor informed Members that the Council would not be liable should any flooding happen as it would be a naturally  occurring event. Should there be an issue, however where it is proved that the developer had done something to exacerbate the situation then it would be a private nuisance case between the developer and the residents.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he was not at the last meeting and sought clarity from officers that if the application was refused the developer would be able to continue building in line with the original permission and if they had done that the development would not have come before Committee again. He advised that it was not a retrospective application, but when the developer had started to build against the permission they were asked to stop and they did.

The Legal Advisor confirmed that Councillor D J Stevenson was correct and that the developer would be able to build in line with the original permission.

In response to a query from Councillor V Richichi, Councillor D J Stevenson stated that the developer already had permission and that they now wished to amend that permission with the application before them, but even if the Committee was minded to refuse the application in front of them the developer would be able to complete the development in line with their original application.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration warned Members that it was his opinion that it would be very difficult to mount a case in line with the reasons that had been given for refusal and that the authority would be exposed to as adverse costs award at any subsequent appeal.

Councillor M Specht requested a recorded vote.

A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, J Bridges, J Cotterill, J Coxon, D Everitt, D Harrison, R Johnson, J Legrys and V Richichi(9).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Boam, N Smith, M Specht and D J Stevenson(4).

Abstentions:

Councillor R Canny and M B Wyatt(2).

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds of loss of privacy and flooding risk.