Five homes drainage changes at Land at (South Of Allotment Gardens), Clay Lane, Uffculme

What was proposed

The application sought to change the drainage condition for five approved dwellings, replacing the previously approved drainage plans with an alternative scheme.

“The application is for the variation of Condition 3 of planning permission 22/00432/FULL (Erection of 5 dwellings) to allow substitute plans relating drainage at land South of Allotment Gardens, Clay Lane, Uffculme.”

“This application seeks to vary the condition to allow an alternative drainage scheme. The previously approved scheme proposed to retain surface water within the site using an infiltration system and directed foul water to a sewer along Clay Lane. With infiltration and surface water body connection proving unfeasible, the revised drainage scheme will connect to a surface water sewer on land east of the site with any excess flows contained within an attenuation basin.”

Officer report

The site and earlier permissions

The site already had permission for five homes, while an adjacent site also had permission for five homes and the developers were collaborating on drainage.

“AGENDA 9 writing this report, the planning permission remains extant. The site immediately to the east also benefits from permission for 5 dwellings. Whilst the sites are in different ownerships, developers have worked collaboratively on matters including drainage.”

“This is a Section 73 application which seeks to amend Condition 3 of application reference 22/00432/FULL. The condition related to drainage and required the development to proceed in accordance with the previously approved drainage scheme. Following infiltration testing on the site, the previous approach to surface water drainage is no longer considered feasible and this application seeks to alter the surface water drainage strategy.”

Officer report

Previous refusal and new evidence

A previous drainage variation was refused because information about foul drainage and infiltration testing was insufficient, followed by further testing and supporting information.

“Insufficient information has been submitted to justify why the foul drainage water scheme cannot join the sewer at Clay Lane. Similarly, insufficient infiltration testing has been carried out to justify why infiltration is not a realistic surface water drainage solution.”

“AGENDA 4 Following the previous refusal, additional infiltration testing has been carried out on the application site. In addition, the applicants have engaged a planning agent who has provided more comprehensive information to justify both the revised foul and surface water schemes in accordance with the destination hierarchy.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the revised drainage safe, compliant with the drainage hierarchy and unlikely to increase flood risk or harm amenity, ecology or the conservation area.

“DM1 of the Local Plan refers to high quality design and seeks to protect neighbourhood amenity. As addressed above, the revised drainage scheme is considered to be safe and meet the necessary requirements. Whilst there will be some works on third party land resulting in some temporary and minor harm, these works have been approved via the adjacent development approval and SWW have permitted development rights to undertake the works in any event.”

“The principle of residential development has been established and remains extant. The revised drainage schemes meet the necessary guidance and hierarchies and are considered safe. It is considered that previous refusal reasons have been addressed. Works on third party land will need to be made-good and there is an amenity benefit from the revised schemes in that Clay Lane will not need to be closed for foul water works.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council objected, while the Highway Authority, Public Health and South West Water raised no objection to the relevant drainage arrangements.

“It is also noted that South West Water continues to issue generic advice without conducting a site specific assessment, despite the sensitive nature of the location and proximity to existing dwellings and conservation boundaries. This undermines the integrity of the consultation process.”

“South West Water has no duty to accept land drainage runoff, flows from natural watercourses or groundwater to the public sewer system, and this is not permitted to discharge to the South West Water network. The applicant should make alternative arrangements to deal with this separately during the development and once the construction work is complete.”

Officer report

What residents raised

Two objections concerned trees and hedgerows, attenuation-basin maintenance, neighbourhood amenity and the alleged lack of a South West Water site visit.

“This planning application has been advertised by means of a site notice erected by the case officer, by notifying immediately adjoining neighbours in writing and by advertising in a local newspaper in accordance with the legal requirements for publicity on planning applications, and the Council’s Adopted Statement of Community Involvement July 2020.”

“- Impact on trees and hedgerows - Maintenance of the attenuation basin - Impact on amenity - Alleged lack of site visit from South West Water…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the applicant’s planning representative and the parish council clerk spoke during the committee item.

What members discussed

Members discussed how quickly South West Water would restore land after works and what would happen if restoration requirements were not met.

“The time it would take for South West Water (SWW) to restore the land to its previous condition. It was explained that SWW were obliged to ensure they met the permitted development rights within 6 months of the completion of survey works whereby they must remove machinery and restore the land back to its former condition. However, if SWW did not comply then this would be referred to Enforcement to investigate.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee resolved to grant permission subject to conditions; three councillors voted against and one abstained.

“It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.”

“Notes:- (i) Chris Howard spoke as the objector (ii) Simon Collier, Collier Planning (online) spoke as the applicant (iii) Gemma Cole, Clerk Uffculme Parish Council (iv) Cllrs S Clist, C Harrower and L G J Kennedy voted against the application. (v) Cllr B Holdman abstained from voting.”

Minutes