Agenda item

Erection of a single storey side and rear extension, following demolition of existing garage (AMENDED PLANS).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

2.    That the drafting of an additional condition requiring submission of surface water drainage details for approval (in the interests of managing the risk of surface water flooding) in relation to managing the risk of flooding from surface water be delegated to the Planning Team Leader. 

Erection of a single storey side and rear extension, following demolition of existing garage (AMENDED PLANS).

Officers introduced the application highlighting the site context, existing and proposed plans and flood?risk mitigation. It was confirmed that the scale, design, neighbour impacts, and landscaping restoration were all policy?compliant. As the proposal met local planning guidance and included appropriate mitigation measures, officers recommended approval.

Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·          Councillor Corthorne emphasised that he was speaking solely in his capacity as a ward councillor and thanked the Planning Committee for considering the application following his request for a call?in.

·          It was noted that long?standing concerns existed regarding the planning policy framework, which was viewed as failing to give adequate weight to increasing flood risk as a material planning consideration.

·          Councillor Corthorne highlighted that flooding in the cul?de?sac was not theoretical, noting that residents had experienced repeated incidents over several decades, with one property affected on four occasions, largely due to the local topography causing water to accumulate around numbers 10 and 11.

·          Reference was made to paragraph 7.43 of the report, where it had been stated that the proposed extension would not significantly increase flood risk, a conclusion the Councillor considered overly optimistic given the known flooding history.

·          Even accepting officers’ assessment at face value, it was noted that the report still acknowledged an element of increased flood risk, which was considered particularly concerning in this location.

·          Councillor Corthorne urged Committee Members to rigorously question officers about the reliability and substance of the flood risk assessment, the meaning of sustainable drainage in this context, and the real?world effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

·          It was stated that residents should be given clear justification as to how approval would offer them reassurance, given their previous traumatic flooding experiences.

·          It was argued that a cited precedent (No. 12) was not directly comparable due to being located on higher ground and therefore should not be relied upon.

·          The Committee was requested to give serious consideration to the concerns raised and, if refusal was not deemed possible, to apply robust scrutiny to officers’ claims regarding flood risk and its management. 

Members asked whether the proposed flood?mitigation measures would ensure that the extension did not increase flood risk for neighbouring properties, given the site’s location within Flood Zone 3. In reply, officers stated that, although the footprint would extend slightly into the green area, the River Pinn was located over 20 metres away, and it was confirmed that the flood risk assessment had considered the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. It was explained that mitigation had been incorporated through reduced extension size, the demolition of the garage, and the installation of soft landscaping during the first planting season, thereby increasing flood?storage capacity and aligning with Environment Agency guidance.

Councillors queried the relevance of a planning inspector’s decision referenced in the report. In reply, it was clarified that previous appeal decisions, even those concerning other locations, were material considerations when considering a planning application.

At the request of the Committee, it was agreed that, to manage the risk of flooding from surface water, additional surface?water details could be required by condition.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report; and

2.    That the drafting of an additional condition in relation to managing the risk of flooding from surface water be delegated to the Planning Team Leader.