Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application (only access to be determined) for up to 22 dwellings, employment units up to 790m sq for B1 use and raising of site levels to form flood defences.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and highlighted the proposed flood prevention works. He reminded members of the extant permission on part of the site for workspace of B1, B2 and B8 use where the same flood defences had been proposed and approved. It was explained that the current application being considered proposed reducing the amount of employment land to B1 use only together with residential properties. Part of the site was in flood zone 3b which is where guidance indicated residential use should not be sited.

He noted the proposal had failed the sequential test and he referred to appeal decisions across the country where Inspector comments had referred to building in floodplains should be avoided and that new buildings should not rely on the building of flood defences. The current site was in the functional floodplain. He pointed out that there was also a need to separate residential and certain types of industrial use as a matter of sound planning practice, and in the interests of residential amenity.

Mr R Upton, agent, noted the two reasons for refusal were flood risk, and noise and nuisance, however there had been no objection from Environment Health about noise. If the flood defence work was done then the site would no longer be a flood zone, and the flood works proposed were not new. He noted if an initial application was submitted to do the flood defences and then a future application for development that it would likely be looked upon favourably, however the cost of doing the flood defences could only now be cost effective with the inclusion of residential on the site. He asked that the application be approved subject to a condition requiring the flood defences to be completed first.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul commented there had been lengthy discussions locally about the proposal and it had also been looked at from a regeneration aspect for Westover. She also acknowledged that the site had a long and chequered planning history.

During a short discussion mixed opinions and comments were raised by members including:

·         During floods of 2013/14 waded through parts of Westover as river had burst its banks

·         Crazy to put housing here

·         To mix industrial units and so much housing is not a good idea

·         Raising the ground levels here has been approved before but it will be very expensive

·         Don’t want houses built if risk of flooding

·         Support if raising levels protects rest of estate and buildings

·         Should not build on land we know already floods

·         Need to be careful about what effect any flood defence works may have on river levels upstream

·         Regarding noise - Concerned housing so near workshops

·         Flood risk and industrial location make the site unsuitable for housing

In response to comments made the agent was invited to clarify some details, he noted that no bund as such was proposed. Areas indicated would be raised so that they didn’t flood. The Environment Agency had agreed that raising levels would not cause increased flooding elsewhere.

The Planning Officer also clarified that after the levels had been raised flood water would go around the development rather than through it.

At the end of discussion it was proposed to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote, was carried 7 in favour, 2 against with no abstentions.

(Voting: 7 in favour of refusal, 2 against, 0 abstentions)