Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATION B 16 0380 CD1

Meeting of Planning Committee, Tuesday, 27th April, 2021 10.00 am (Item 100.)

Application for approval of conditions 11 (foul water), 12 (surface water), 14 (finished floor level), 16 (acoustic bund details), 17 (construction management plan) and 18 (geographical survey) attached to planning permission B/16/0380 (Outline application for the erection of up to 215 dwellings with all matters (scale, layout, landscaping, appearance) except access reserved with public open space and drainage infrastructure)

Land at Middlegate Road, Frampton, Boston, PE20 1BX

Charlotte Dew, Larkfleet Homes

Minutes:

Condition Discharge

Land at Middlegate Road, Frampton, Boston, PE20 1BX

Larkfleet Homes

Presenting the report the Assistant Director – Planning confirmed that it was tabled as when resolving to grant reserved matters in November 2018, committee members had requested that the drainage conditions be tabled back through committee once the final solutions had been defined.

For clarity of their determination, members were advised that the overall compliance for the site was in two parts with the first relating to conditions attached to the outline application whilst the second related to matters attached to the reserve matters which were subject to a separate discharge request detailed in the report.

Each request sought to cover a number of conditions but it was only the conditions relating to drainage, which were subject to the planning committee’s determination. Condition 11 foul water and condition 12 surface water were the only two for consideration and both had been attached to the outline consent that had been agreed by the Inspector on appeal.

Members were reminded that in respect of drainage, the planning committee was not a statutory undertaker and the level of detail required was different to that considered by the statutory authority.

The applicant needed to achieve compliance with overlapping technical and legislative requirements with the statutory bodies who took a far more granular view of the proposal. Should committee agree the application today, but the statutory bodies find it non-compliant thereafter, then the applicant would be required to return to committee with any changes required.

A visual presentation followed identifying the key points on the site for collection and distribution of both types of drainage. The swales would run alongside a number of the main internal routes on the eastern and southern boundaries. The attenuation ponds would be located at the centre of the site, to the east of the main access and would bind the existing watercourse and hold c4300m3. They would be connected to a wider surface water system which would act as a holding point for the water, with the outfall form them being restricted by hydro-brakes. Perimeter land drains with a 300mm diameter to ensure a robust spare flow capacity, were also proposed along the southern and western boundaries and would be shared with properties on Middlegate Road and seek to capture excess run-off from those proposed properties.

No public representation was received in respect of this item.

Committee deliberation followed which included:

Concerns were raised in respect of ongoing drainage issues and members voiced their agreement that whilst they appreciated the proposals would not resolve existing issues, they were in agreement that they must not exacerbate them.

A member sought clarification in respect of the design of the headwalls for the outfalls asking if they related to foul or surface water and, which if not produced to an acceptable standard, they would not be progressed. The Assistant Director-Panning confirmed it referred to surface water and that unless they were to an agreed standard, they would not progress.

Further concern noted that the site was on running silt and although granted by the Secretary of State on appeal, moving forward applicants did need to be aware that schemes were adequate and stable.

In conclusion, the Chairman commended the detailed and technical report. He stated that the committee was very mindful of local concerns and ongoing issues and he noted that he was reassured with the drainage proposed for outside issues and satisfied that the conditions set out would not exacerbate existing issues. He further stated that in the absence of any technical report to counter the report, it would be difficult to refuse and he felt supported by the additional reassurance that the statutory bodies would finalise their decisions with due diligence.

It was moved by Councillor Paul Skinner and seconded by Councillor Tom Aston that committee agree that Condition 11 and Condition 12 were acceptable in line with officer recommendation and delegate authorisation to the Assistant Director – Planning to issue the final sign-off of the conditions.

Vote: For 8. Against 4. Abstention 0.

RESOLVED: That committee agree condition 11 and condition 12 to be acceptable in line with officer recommendation, in line with the reasons noted below and agree a delegation of authorisation to the Assistant Director – Planning, to issue the final sign-off of the conditions, subject to any minor amendments that may be required:

In light of the aforementioned report, Officers recommended to Members that the details provided in respect of conditions 11 & 12 relating to foul and surface water drainage were acceptable.

Members were therefore requested to endorse the view and conclusion of the Officers so that they might respond to the matters accordingly within the formal response to the discharge of condition request that had been made. The recommendation being that the details for conditions 11 and 12 be agreed.

Members were also asked to delegate authorisation to the AD – Planning, to

issue the final sign-off, of the conditions, subject to any minor amendments required.

Supporting documents: