Minutes:
The Chairman said that members are aware a challenge was raised to FDC and KLWN over the procedure of registering local land charges where there are not full details of drainage proposed for site in place at the time consent was granted.
Following on from this, KLWN has agreed to remove all local land charges and will not place any more on their register following on from planning consent’s reliance on the drainage. The FDC position is they have never have put a local land charge on, but what they have inserted is what Middle Level have requested, which was a note on the record and they continue to maintain they can do this. The remaining disagreement is whether there is such a thing as a note on the register. Advice from a barrister is that there is either a local land charge or nothing. The reason for the disagreement is that there are a lot of these notes being interpreted by search companies as charges.
Discussions are ongoing and if we can arrive at a condition that was put on the planning consent that made it clear that when reserve matters are submitted they need to include full drainage details that may be the satisfactory solution for everyone. There will be further discussion regarding the phrasing of such a condition and the Chairman will continue to pursue this in order to arrive at a resolution.
Nick Harding said that in terms of FDC’s position, generally we would only ask for drainage details on larger sites or where a particular drainage issue is drawn to our attention that needs resolving. We focus only on major applications because we look to the lead local flood authority to assist us in the discharge of those surface water conditions. The IDB concern extends to smaller schemes also. If we were to request drainage details for all applications where there is a surface water discharge, we do not have the manpower or technical knowledge to deal with that workload. There is the possibility of having a compliance condition placed on these planning permissions saying that drainage should be dealt with by certain means unless it is demonstrated that a soakaway is not suitable. Alternatively, all those small schemes have a note highlighting the need for IDB approval if draining into their systems. The IDB have made it clear that for a modest fee you can apply to them with your surface water drainage proposals and they will indicate if the proposals are satisfactory or not. NH added that in his view it is more straightforward to deal directly with organisations rather than through the council as a third party, although he knows there is disagreement on that.
David Thomas said that he found it strange that the planning authority is seen as the third party in the planning process. It has an obligation to ensure that planning is appropriate in all aspects, and he is getting the impression they want to wash their hands of the surface water aspect. It is right that consent is required where direct discharge is being made into a watercourse but we are talking about conflict with national policy that is pushing developers and planning authorities to insisting that the default positon is where drainage and direct discharge is onto the hierarchy as a last resort in drainage solutions. The majority of settlement areas are clay so infiltration is not the ideal solution and often it takes technical arrangements to make it work. It is accepted that this is an issue and although all authorities involved will be meeting to discuss and pursue an answer to this, he is concerned that we seem to be going round in circles and not coming to a resolution. It also seems to fall on building control to monitor and ensure the solutions are implemented correctly, but we know it is not working as there are currently no mechanisms in place to make it work. Therefore it is of concern to hear that building regulation controls may be removed in future. The Chairman said that the issue is not where this is discharge but those sites with soakaways or infiltration of other kinds which are then not within the statutory powers of the board to grant a discharge on. He has suggested a planning condition that says when reserve matters are submitted they are to include full details of surface water drainage with sufficient background detail to ensure they have been proposed to a satisfactory standard.
David Thomas agreed, saying we need to get the solution right. Surface water flooding is being pushed very heavily by all councils and brought up the agenda. With climate change problems of localised flooding are going to increase and we need to address this now.
NH said he was not abdicating FDC responsibility but was trying to say that if we were to engage with developers on the discharge of these conditions for every development that required a soakaway, they would require a financial contribution from FDC for delivering that service our behalf. FDC gets a modest fee for dealing with discharge of conditions but it does not cover the cost of dealing with those types of applications and the point made by the Chairman was that we cannot require these applications to be made by an engineering professional. If someone says that is what they need, we cannot insist they have suitable qualifications for the submission. The Chairman said we would need to see proper calculations with the proposal. It is not perfect but it would be an improved position. DT said that sampling could be arranged, this would be at a lesser cost. The Chairman said at least this shows we are all trying to work together to find a solution.