Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

Surface Water and Drainage Supplementary Planning Document for Adoption

(See report at agenda item 5 (pages 17 to 19) of the Cabinet agenda of 6 September 2016 and pages 1 to 124 in the supplement to the agenda)

RECOMMENDED BY THE CABINET

 

1)      That the Surface Water and Foul Drainage Supplementary Planning Document (set out in Appendix 1 to this report) be adopted.

2)      The proposed responses to representations received (set out in Appendix 2 to this report) be approved.

 

 

Minutes:

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning), seconded by Mrs Lintill, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet. She stated that the Surface Water and Foul Drainage Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was a planning guidance document for developers and their agents to assist them in determining whether there was sufficient infrastructure available to meet the needs of their proposed development to ensure the safe discharge of both foul and surface waste water. It sets out the procedures to be followed prior to submitting a planning application. The SPD went out for public consultation on 28 March 2016 for a period of six weeks. 

 

Mr Oakley welcomed the overall thrust of the document in consolidating all the guidance in one place to assist the planning process. However he was concerned at the non-requirement to carry out winter ground water monitoring before the submission of the primary application for a site as without that information it limited the Planning Committee as to whether the surface water drainage system proposed for a site could be achieved. 

 

Mr Ransley wished to know what timescales had been set to allow the review and update of the document. Mrs Taylor undertook to provide a written response to this question.

 

Mr Ransley also referred members to the debate that took place on this matter during the Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s review of Southern Water (SW) recently when SW undertook to take positive steps on addressing the long term issue the Council has experienced in relation to the maintenance of ditches and waterways (hence his reason to address the regularity of the reviews). He stated that if anything came out of that proposal it would bring about positive changes to the document. Mrs Apel (Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee) advised that she had received a positive email from SW following the meeting and that she hoped this now provided the basis for good communication between SW and the Council in future.

 

Mr Barrow requested that where a resident had taken the trouble to respond to the consultation and their response had not been taken into account, it was important to acknowledge these comments and also to pass them to SW in order that they may be addressed.

 

Mr Plowman commended this document for its clarity and clear flow charts, stating that it provided good help and guidance for the future. He was supported by Mrs Apel and Mr Hayes.

 

Mr Barrett had an issue with ground water testing, saying that the Manhood Peninsula was low lying and the water table high so there was a risk of flooding. Mrs Taylor advised that the document referred to ground water testing needing to be carried out by the developer for developments of five or more houses, with the Council arranging this testing direct for developments of under five houses. Mr Carvell advised that SW’s preference was for ground water testing prior to construction rather than at the detailed planning application stage. Mr Frost continued that the question appeared not to relate so much to the SPD, which is the guidance, but to the wording and requirements of the planning conditions that might be applied to the surface water drainage, therefore enabling the construction but with conditions attached. If there was no drainage solution then it was incumbent upon the developer to come back to the Council to address the condition in an alternative manner. There was the option for interested parties to have a further discussion outside the meeting.

 

In putting the recommendation to the vote there were four abstentions.

 

RESOLVED

 

1)      That the Surface Water and Foul Drainage Supplementary Planning Document be adopted.

2)       The proposed responses to the representations received be approved.

 

 

Top of page