Agenda item

APPLICATION NO. DM2018/00264 - Land Rear Of 241 And 243 Church Hill Road North Cheam

Variation of condition 1 (approved drawings) of previously approved application A2017/77279/FUL to amend siting, finished ground level and drainage details.

 

Minutes:

 

Iain Williams, Senior Planning Officer presented the report on the above application for variation of condition 1 (approved drawings) of previously approved application A2017/77279/FUL to amend siting, finished ground level and drainage details.

 
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor James Mc Dermott Hill.

 

The Chair noted that this item was a deferred item from the meeting 14 November 2018 and that a full discussion took place at that meeting. The reason for the deferral was to give further consideration to drainage at the site, and this was the issue under discussion at the meeting. The debate stage of the consideration had been reached during the previous meeting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update to the committee explaining that he met the residents at the site on 29 November and that the applicant had provided additional drawings.

 

Members noted that the discharge rate of 2 litres/second from the main tanks could only be achieved with correct maintenance of the system, and that this was common with drainage systems.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that, reviewing modern maps, there was no water course evident in the area.
 

Stephanie Smithers and Michael Walters objectors, and Councillor James

Mc Dermott-Hill a ward Councillor, addressed the meeting at Chair’s discretion, and the applicant replied.
 
Stephanie Smithers and Michael Walters referred to:

 

  • The ground levels in the eastern corner of the plot and the small tolerances of 100mm in the design.
  • The building work completed to date is higher had been originally intended, and is therefore higher than the gardens in D’Arcy Road. Stephanie Smithers and Michael Walters suggested some form of protection such as a small wall is needed on the boundary.
  • Stephanie Smithers explained that she had been in the gardens in D’Arcy Road and had seen the levels being discussed. The site is on clay, therefore little water will be soaked into the ground, water will simply run off the surface. It was suggested that additional vegetation on the site would help reduce the run-off, and that a small wall would reduce the run-off to the gardens adjoining the site.
  • Members heard that there are technical methods used by builders to ensure that correct levels are achieved when constructing drainage systems.
  • Members asked about the wall suggested by residents, and Michael Walters and Stephanie Smithers described it as a small wall, such as a kerb upstand and pointed out on the plans the length of the wall being considered.

 

Councillor James McDermott Hill (ward Councillor), addressed the meeting. He explained that he felt a physical barrier should be considered between the site and the gardens in D’Arcy Road, suggesting this would ensure that new residents living in  the properties being built and the current residents could have confidence in the drainage at the site.

 

In discussion Members asked if a condition that the drainage systems be reviewed after one year could be added to planning permission granted. The Head of Development Management and Strategic Planning explained that reviews are not carried out routinely nor added to conditions, as the imposed conditions should be sufficient, explaining that   enforcement is possible if required. The Head of Development Management and Strategic Planning also noted that the reasons for the deferral had all been addressed, Thames Water were reported to be content with the flow rates, and that the reason for deferral does not include discussion of an upstand or wall.

 

Members noted that there had been various enforcement issues at the site to date, and that there is fear additional enforcement will be required. The Members suggested that by agreeing to a small wall this would provide residents a commitment from the developer about their concerns.

 

Robin Harper, applicant addressed the meeting. The main points raised were:

 

  • There had been requests for additional information, about the design, and this had been provided, noting that no error had been found in the design, and that the models had been run as requested.
  • The purpose of attenuation is to take run-off from hard surfaces and not from soft landscaped areas, 60% of the site would be attenuated and resulting in previously uncaptured run-off now being captured.
  • The tolerance levels in the design have been approved by drainage officers.

Members asked about the inclusion of the suggested kerb and that the purpose would be to capture run-off, this would add additional water to Thames Water’s systems and had not be previously mentioned, therefore it is unknown if Thames Water would agree to this amendment to the design.

 

Members noted the site is up hill from the residents’ properties, and that previously there had been no hard standing, and no attenuation system in place. The site is a brownfield site which previously had commercial buildings on it.  

 

Members asked how the site would be sold, it was explained the site would be freehold, with joint freehold for the shared areas, which would be managed through a management company.

 

In debate, Members discussed that the reliance on a management company for maintenance raises concerns both for now and into the future. The arrangements outlined in this design for the aftercare of the drainage system are common practice. The drainage system as outlined had been approved by the drainage authority.

 

Member understood the concerns raised by the residents in D’Arcy Road.   

 

 

 

 

 

.

Supporting documents: