Minutes:
The Chairman explained that a meeting had taken place, with members from Middle Level, Developer Forum, County Council and the District Council.
At this meeting issues were discussed and it was clear that there are different bodies applying different standards for dealing with surface water drainage.
For example Building Control has a requirement that a calculation is taken on a 1 in 10 year basis, Middle Level and NPPF use 1 in 100 with a suitable allowance for climate change which could be up to 40%.
Some of the problems that have arisen with soakaways having been signed off and then Middle Level not being happy with them have arisen as they have been built with building control approval on a 1 in 10 year basis or in some cases on the basis of the manufacturers recommendations irrespective of what peculation tests may or may not have been carried out.
The principle of using local land charges to control this was discussed.JM added that under the local land charges act there is a questionable point as to whether local land charges can be used to enforce bylaws. Further discussion on this aspect is still to take place.
The suggestion has been made as to whether this could be dealt with rather than having a local land charge by comprehensive condition on planning consents that require surface water drainage to be provided based upon proper investigation, i.e. BRE 365 peculation tests and proper calculation to the NPPF standard. This information would then need to be submitted in discharging that condition so there was confidence that it had been carried out by a qualified person to the required standard.
The Chairman added that another part of the issue about having a condition is whether the local authorities involved are able to find a resource to be able to deal with the resulting discharge applications.
David Thomas from Middle Level stated that they would never seek to place a local land charge on a property; they would put an alert, via a note on the land charges register via the planning authority to state that they maybe an issue with regard to surface water drainage so a potential buyer is aware that there are unresolved matters. He added that clarification is sought so local authorities are all working from the same set of rules.
The Chairman added that what developers and agents require is some clarity, but also a single point of contact to get all matters related to surface water dealt with and signed off.
Nick Harding explained that it is not possible to be able to hire an additional resource to facilitate the checking of surface water details submitted for approval by the local planning authority.(this is the system the working group wished to see introduced)
A discussion to consider possible solutions to reach a satisfactory outcome took place.
Gary Garford added that the core issue is to stop flooding and if we are dealing with major and minor applications, is there a need because of the less risk to check the minor applications or is there just the need to ensure major applications comply.
Middle Level provides 15 minutes of free advice to householders with regard to drainage.
Further discussion took place concerning processes and the lack of resources. The Chairman stated that at the very least a compliance condition would make people aware that they have to design to the right standard.
NH added that there are already notes on permissions that advise that developers should liaise with Middle level regarding any surface water discharges to their systems and going forward he would be happy to adjust or add another note which says ‘In order to avoid a note going on land charges, you are strongly advised to contact Middle Level and have confirmation that any soakaways you are proposing are designed appropriately.’
David Thomas added his preference would still be some type of condition and the Chairman said yes a condition at outline planning and a land charge note at reserved matters stage if the reserved matters application does not include the full drainage details would seem to be a situation which in most cases mean they include their details in the wit the reserved matters and it avoids 99% of the notes.
Ben Hornigold commented that there is no reason why at outline stage a BRE 365 test cannot be carried out on site to see whether the site is suitable to take infiltration systems.
Lee from Middle Level suggested the following website which may help developers when looking at quality of land including soil type.
www.mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html
The Chairman concluded by saying that there are ideas on the table as to how we may move the issue forward to try and find a satisfactory solution.
The Chairman added that in his opinion there is no reason why a compliance condition on the standard of design for soakaways could not be put in place and this would provide the right type and quality of drainage.