Agenda item

Proposal:	Re-alignment of the farm drive along with associated landscaping and use of part of the site for D2 (outdoor sports and recreation) use for up to 250 days per annum.
Location:	Home Farm, Purley Village, Purley On Thames, Berkshire, RG8 8AX
Applicant:	TW and VR Metcalfe
Recommendation:	Subject to no adverse comments being received from the Lead Flood Authority and the Environment Agency, to DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in section 8.1 of the report.

 

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was the applicant for the planning application. As his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter other than to speak as the applicant).

(All Committee Members declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the applicant was known to them as a fellow Councillor and Committee Member. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Metcalfe left the Committee at 6.56pm but remained in the room to speak as the applicant).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/00562/COMIND in respect of the proposed realignment of the farm drive along with associated landscaping and use of part of the site for D2 (outdoor sports and recreation) use for up to 250 days per annum.

Simon Till, Senior Planning Officer, opened his introduction to the report by referring Members to the update report. This explained that the Environment Agency (EA) and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted by the applicant and had identified inadequacies with the level of information it contained. In light of these objections, the Officer Recommendation had been altered to one of refusal for the reason outlined in the update report and summarised in the following paragraph.

Mr Till explained that the site was located entirely within Flood Zone 2 and a substantial part of the site was located in Flood Zone 3. Flooding was therefore a concern and the EA objection stated that the FRA failed to demonstrate that the raised road would not impede flood flow and that the proposed culverts would allow flood water to flow beneath the elevated road. The EA had therefore requested further information to confirm that an adequate strategy was in place. However, no further information had been forthcoming from the applicant to address these concerns.

Mr Till concluded his introduction by explaining that while weight had been given to the community benefit this application would achieve, the concerns of the EA together with the fact that this was in a flood risk area meant that the application was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Graham Rolfe, Parish Council representative, and Councillor Tim Metcalfe, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Rolfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    While the Parish Council in principle accepted the reasoning behind this application, they had objections. This included flooding (as already referred to) but their concerns went beyond flooding.

·                    They would not object to the realignment of the farm drive if issues could be addressed. This part of Purley Village (the road) was well used by visitors and the proposal would result in many parking spaces ceasing to exist due to the proposed new position of the drive entrance/exit. Alternative parking would therefore be sought elsewhere in the village to the inconvenience of local residents.

·                    The farm drive would be narrow which was a concern when considering its use by large farm vehicles. A larger than normal turning area was also needed to accommodate these vehicles. The width of the current access splay was wider than in the proposal and ease of access was therefore questioned.

·                    The Parish Council was assuming that gates would be positioned at the end of the drive. This would delay access and cause delays on the road. Gates would need to be a distance from the road.

·                    Use of the sports field by the primary school was supported, but potential other uses were a concern. The Parish Council was concerned that approval of the proposal could permit a range of activities to take place. Permission was sought to use the site for D2 (outdoor sports and recreation) use for up to 250 days per annum but there were only 190 school days a year. Use on the remaining 60 days was therefore questioned.

·                    It was noted that permitted development would allow use of other land on Home Farm for a temporary period of up to 28 days for provision of temporary parking. The question remained on how parking would be managed for the remaining 32 days (of the 60 days already highlighted).

·                    This was primarily a residential area and noise disturbance was a concern for residents from different events. There could also be many attendees for events, such as sports day, which would increase the car parking concern.

·                    Parking in the area was already tight and this was also a concern for highways. Suitable conditions were needed in order to protect residents should the application be approved.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to proposed condition three – use restriction - which related to Mr Rolfe’s concern of other non-school uses. Councillor Bridgman pointed out that the condition stated that the land in question for D2 use would only be used for the purpose of sports and games activities ancillary to Purley Church of England School (should the application be approved). Mr Rolfe stated that this concern was therefore alleviated.

Councillor Pamela Bale questioned the actual reduction in parking referred to. Mr Rolfe estimated this as the loss of seven or eight spaces. This would be as a result of the widened turning space for the realigned access (a splay of 43 metres). Councillor Bale would pursue this point further with Highways Officers.

Councillor Alan Law noted, from the Parish Council’s consultation comments in the report, the point that informal discussions had taken place between the school and the applicant. Councillor Law queried whether a formal agreement was actually in place. Mr Rolfe believed this to be the case.

In response to a question from Councillor Emma Webster, Mr Rolfe advised that he was not aware of any additional school use within the school holidays, i.e. holiday club.

Councillor Metcalfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The application was formulated following a request by the school for increased playground facilities.

·                    Ten years ago, farm land/a field had been allocated to the school. In the intervening period the school had grown into a primary school with additional year groups and a need for a larger playing field area had arisen.

·                    Many discussions had been held with the school and Councillor Metcalfe’s son had led this project.

·                    Discussions had also taken place with Gareth Dowding (Senior Engineer) on the road access. Following these discussions, Councillor Metcalfe had employed a consultant (Stuart Michael) to help progress this part of the development.

·                    The application for D2 use was recommended by David Pearson (Development Control Team Leader).

·                    Parking in the area was not a particular issue. Sports days were already held and families walked to the event if necessary.

·                    There were no gates on the existing drive and none were planned for the realigned drive. Gated access points would only be in place to access the school field and to enable the maintenance of the land. This was a condition of approval.

·                    In terms of flooding, it was the case that Purley had suffered from pluvial, fluvial and ground water flooding. Pluvial flooding was minimal, fluvial flooding was a concern for villagers from the river and this type of flooding occurred most years to some degree. However, Councillor Metcalfe explained that for the application land, the water rose out of the ground (ground water flooding) rather than being flooded from the river.

·                    A concern had been raised that the drive would block any surge of water and therefore create a flood risk but this was not the case.

·                    A flood concern was an issue as a result of the road built by the EA in order to access Mapledurham Lock. This road was built without any culverts running through it and acted as a bund. The causeway cut through the true flood plain and was a major concern at times of fluvial flooding.

Councillor Richard Crumly referred to the application site plan in seeking to determine the potential space for car parking. Councillor Metcalfe gave the view that there was already sufficient parking provision within Purley.

Councillor Crumly then asked how frequently the application site had flooded within the last ten years. Councillor Metcalfe had not known this to be the case and pointed out that Ivy Cottage was at a greater risk of flooding.

Councillor Law sought confirmation of the visibility splays. Condition 9 stated that splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres needed to be provided and Councillor Law queried if this was detailed within plans. Councillor Metcalfe confirmed this was the case.

Councillor Bale sought further clarify on where gates would be installed. Councillor Metcalfe reiterated that there would be no gates for the new drive and none were shown on plans. The access to the existing drive would be gated and gates would be in place to access the school field and to enable the maintenance of the land, as already described.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the objections of the EA. The EA felt that the FRA failed to demonstrate that the proposed culverts would allow flood water to flow beneath the elevated road and therefore alleviate flood risk. The EA’s letter requested extra detail on this point and Councillor Bridgman queried why this had not been provided.

In response, Councillor Metcalfe explained that the project was undertaken to benefit the village school. The starting point was a cut and fill exercise, topography was also needed of the front field which was costly. The consultant referred to had been hired to design the drive at a cost. Ivy Cottage residents had been consulted and this resulted in agreement to erect park rail fencing. This was all at Councillor Metcalfe’s own cost and he did not charge the school rent for the field.

The requirement then followed for the FRA which was reluctantly produced and the Officer Recommendation had been to grant planning permission. However, concerns were then raised by the EA with a request for more information on the culverts and Councillor Metcalfe felt that this further request was a step too far, even though non adherence to this request had resulted in the recommendation changing to one of refusal. He had also been informed that the application would be referenced up to the District Planning Committee if it was approved.

Councillor Emma Webster continued to reference the requirements of the EA. She had viewed the FRA and the section on flood risk and asked Councillor Metcalfe whether he felt this addressed their concerns. Councillor Metcalfe felt that he could not respond specifically on that point, he did however give his view that culverts beneath the drive would prove meaningless.

Councillor Alan Macro noted Councillor Metcalfe’s point that he did not charge the school. He therefore queried the point raised by the school in relation to elevated charges. Councillor Metcalfe explained that the existing field had been provided to the school rent free on the understanding that they would have the responsibility for its maintenance. The school had looked into the costs for grass cutting and this had resulted in them asking Councillor Metcalfe for a quote. Grass cutting was therefore provided at a cost, but this was at a reduced rate from other quotes received. There was no rental charge.

Gareth Dowding clarified the point made earlier by Councillor Metcalfe in relation to the advice given to him by the Highways Authority. The applicant had been provided with various names of different consultants and not a specific consultant. Councillor Metcalfe acknowledged this to be the case.

(Councillor Metcalfe left the room at 7.27pm).

In considering the above application, Members had a number of questions to ask of Officers.

Councillor Macro asked if cars could be parked within the 43 metre turning splay. Gareth Dowding confirmed that there was no need for the 43 metre area to be completely clear of parked cars and there would be no restriction in place to prevent this. Therefore the maximum number of lost car parking spaces was felt to be two.

Councillor Webster again made reference to the FRA and the section on flood risk. This stated that in order to ensure that the playing field was not cut off from the likely source of flooding a number of culverts would be constructed beneath the raised farm drive to allow floodwater to flow beneath from east to west. The FRA stated that there would be a gain in flood storage capacity in comparison to the existing situation. Councillor Webster therefore asked why this did not alleviate the concerns of the EA. Stuart Clark (Principal Engineer) acknowledged that a description had been provided of how flood risk would be mitigated. However, a greater level of detail was required before the EA was fully satisfied. This included more detailed drawings and calculations which demonstrated that the culverts would mitigate the risk. An appropriate cut and fill balance was also needed.

Stuart Clark clarified that this remaining information requirement was relatively minimal and could be achieved at a relatively low cost.

Councillor Law referred to the applicant’s comments on the nature of the flooding on this land and the applicant’s view that the EA was unclear on that point. The applicant felt that further work would be irrelevant and Councillor Law queried this.

Stuart Clark explained that as a result of the proposed cut and fill exercise combined with the raised access track, more water would be displaced. The EA required a calculation on this for completeness and for them to be convinced.

Councillor Law followed this by asking if the EA requests were reasonable. Stuart Clark advised that the EA was acting correctly in seeking complete assurance and were taking their role to the absolute letter. He added that from an engineering perspective, the development could be made to work with appropriate conditions and use of the necessary materials.

Councillor Law then asked for Mr Clark’s professional view on whether he would approve the application in its current form or was the requested further detail necessary. Mr Clark reiterated that the EA was being correct but in his view the concerns could be resolved by engineering solutions and the provision of the additional drawings and calculations already referred to.

In light of this comment, Councillor Webster queried if the requirement for these additional drawings and calculations could be a condition of approval with development not able to proceed until this had been received. Mr Clark felt that this could be the approach.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the LLFA objection contained in the update report and the comments provided by Jon Bowden, the Council’s Senior Engineer for Land Drainage. This expressed the view that there was too much outstanding information of a detailed nature required to allow approval with conditions on flood/SuDS grounds. He therefore repeated the question to Mr Clark on whether the application could be approved with appropriate conditions. Mr Clark reiterated that it could be engineered to work.

Mr Till referred to the objections of the EA and LLFA, they both felt the level of detail in the FRA to be insufficient for the application to be approved. Members needed to be mindful of this in determining the planning application. David Pearson added the view that the concerns of the EA and LLFA carried a different emphasis.

Mr Pearson went on to explain that the EA was the strategic flood authority and therefore their concerns should not be dismissed lightly. A FRA was required for this application to show that flood risk concerns could be mitigated. The Committee needed a sound reason to approve this application and disregard the advice of the EA.

Mr Clark added that the EA managed the flood risk from and was the flood risk authority for main rivers, i.e. the Thames, and not the Council. The Council’s responsibility was in relation to surface/ground water flooding.

Councillor Law felt that the Committee was receiving confused messages. The EA advice and the requests for further information had been stated as correct and ‘by the book’, but the point had also been made that the application was close to being acceptable. He therefore queried, as did Councillor Webster, whether the application could be approved subject to appropriate conditions. Mr Pearson explained that the EA considered that the FRA was not fit for purpose and further information was required. This had not been provided by the applicant and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

However, Councillor Webster queried if the following could be considered as a suitable condition on which to approve planning permission: ‘No development shall take place until full details of flood mitigation works have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. This information would need to demonstrate that the raised road would not impede flood flow and the proposed culverts would allow flood water to flow beneath the elevated road. The scheme would need to be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details.’

In response to this point, Mr Pearson acknowledged that Members could approve the planning application but it would still be referenced up to the District Planning Committee as a result of the concerns that had been raised which included and went beyond the EA points. The EA was concerned at the site being located entirely within Flood Zone 2 and a substantial part of the site being within Flood Zone 3. As already explained the FRA did not contain the detail required by the EA that would establish that the proposed works would not result in an increase in flood risk and that drainage of the site would be managed. The Officer recommendation was strongly for refusal of the application.

Mr Till drew attention to a recent Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) directive for applications where EA objections could not be overcome in Flood Zones 2 and 3. This directive stated that such applications, if approved at a local level, would need to be submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration.

He added that the EA frequently recommended conditions for reasonable measures to address issues. However, in this case they were not satisfied based on the existing information provided by the applicant and they felt that issues could not be addressed by conditions.

Councillor Law acknowledged the viewpoint of the EA, but returned to the condition of approval outlined by Councillor Webster. This would require the provision of further information and a more detailed FRA from the applicant before the development could commence. Councillor Webster also acknowledged the concerns of the EA and the LLFA, but the guidance provided by the Principal Engineer indicated the scheme was technically workable subject to the provision of additional information and engineering work. She re-read her proposed condition and reiterated that no development could commence until sufficient detail had been submitted. She questioned therefore why conditional approval of the application would result in it being referenced to District Planning Committee when it would be subject to appropriate conditions.

Mr Pearson added that if Members were minded to approve the application then an additional condition would need to be included to ensure that permitted works were retained in perpetuity.

Councillor Marigold Jaques acknowledged that Officers were the experts, but in this case the applicant was known to be reliable and he had expressed his concerns at being required to provide further information which he felt to be unreasonable and unnecessary, as well as having to meet ongoing costs. She would not be supporting Officers’ recommendation.

Councillor Bridgman felt that a considerable extension would be required to the conditions before the application could be approved. To support this he again referenced the LLFA objections in the update report. This stated that ‘full calculations showing volumes of cut and fill on a level for level basis must be provided’. The update report also stated that even if extended culverts were used, issues would remain as the existing ground levels outside of the site were above the lowest proposed level within the site meaning not all stored flood water would be free to pass back through the culverts. If a second flood event occurred before the storage area had fully drained away then storage capacity for the second flood would be reduced. The update report stated the LLFA view that this was not acceptable.

Councillor Bridgman accepted the points made around knowledge of the applicant and seeking to introduce a satisfactory condition to approve the application, but the applicant had been given the opportunity to provide the additional information but this had not been forthcoming to date.

Councillor Macro commented that further work would be required by the applicant if the application was approved with the additional condition or if the applicant was required to adhere to the requests of the EA. He voiced a concern that should the item be approved and the detail required by the EA not provided, then it would send a concerning message to other applicants.

Councillor Tony Linden had sympathy for the applicant, however in his view a greater level of certainty was needed before the item could be approved. He also felt that approval of the application in its current form would be a concern particularly when the applicant was a fellow Committee Member.

Councillor Webster clarified that the proposed condition she put forward was based on officer advice that the application was technically acceptable and the condition was therefore both lawful and appropriate. Knowledge of the applicant was not a factor in this.

Councillor Peter Argyle explained that his sympathy was with the school. They had used the existing field for many years and needed the additional space. He would not want a further delay for the school, however this would be necessary to some degree to satisfy additional requests for information.

Councillor Bale felt that more detailed conditions were also needed in order to address the LLFA objections. Specifically, this related to the point made that the proposed access fell down to the existing highway meaning that there would be run-off from the track. Proposals were required to show how this would be intercepted and dealt with using suitable SuDS measures.

Councillor Webster stated that she was willing to add this point to her draft condition in order to cover this matter. She added a further extension to this condition, in line with Councillor Bridgman’s earlier point, to ensure that full calculations showing volumes of cut and fill were provided on a ‘level for level’ basis.

Continuing with the LLFA objection, Councillor Law referred back to the point made in the penultimate paragraph of the objection that there was too much outstanding information of a detailed nature required to allow approval with conditions on flood/SuDS grounds. He felt that the application should have the complete support of the specialist officer before it could be approved. Councillor Webster noted that Stuart Clark as Principal Engineer was a higher ranking officer than Jon Bowden as Senior Engineer. She therefore felt that greater weight should be given to the advice of the Principal Engineer.

Councillor Richard Crumly noted the concerns that had been raised, but he did not feel these to be significant as the application was for sports and recreation rather than a residential development, and therefore flooding was a far lesser concern. The applicant had stated that the site had not flooded within the last ten years. He was supportive of the application.

Councillor Crumly further noted that the FRA had been produced and he felt the further requests of the EA to be more applicable to building work.

In response to Councillor Crumly’s points, Mr Clark stated that the flood concern was not in relation to the field, rather the concern was that surface water could be displaced towards existing residents.

Councillor Bridgman remained of the view that conditions would not overcome the point in the LLFA objection that extended culverts would not resolve the issue of storage capacity in the event of flooding.

Councillor Webster proposed that planning permission be granted, contrary to the Officer recommendation in the update report, subject to the conditions in the report and additional conditions highlighted by herself and Councillor Bale in relation to flood mitigation, and in relation to cut and fill calculations. This was seconded by Councillor Bale.

The proposal for approval, contrary to the revised Officer recommendation in the update report, was rejected.

Councillor Bridgman then proposed acceptance of the revised Officer recommendation in the update report to refuse planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Linden. The proposal for refusal of the application was accepted.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The application proposes a cut and fill operation to create a flat sports pitch area for use by St Johns Church of England School and a new driveway and running surface for vehicles serving Home Farm to the north of the site. The site is located entirely within Flood Zone 2 and a substantial part of the site is located within Flood Zone 3. The submitted flood risk assessment accompanying the application does not contain sufficient detail to establish that the proposed works would not result in an increase in flood risk on the site and surrounding area, or sufficient detail to confirm that an effective strategy would be employed to manage drainage on the site such as to prevent an increase in flood risk on the site and in the surrounding area. The proposed works are therefore contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) that requires that when determining planning applications Local Planning Authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere; Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 which requires development to demonstrate a high quality and sustainable design that makes a positive contribution to the quality of life in West Berkshire; and Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 which states that development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would not have an impact on the capacity of an area to store floodwater, it would not have a detrimental impact on the flow of fluvial water, surface water or obstruct the run-off of water due to high levels of groundwater, and that appropriate measures to manage flood risk can be implemented with provision made for long term maintenance and management of any flood protection and mitigation measures.”