Agenda item

Application no: F/2014/2353 - Land to rear of 58 Hurst Road, Twyford

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval, subject to Legal Agrement.


Proposal:  Erection of 12 dwellings (including 4 affordable dwellings) with access, parking, open space and landscaping.


Applicant:  Mr S Hicks


The Committee considered a report about this application set out on Agenda pages 227 to 273.


The Committee was advised that S106 Legal Agreement had been signed on 20 March 2015, so this date should be added to Informative 2 on Agenda page 234; and that the Members’ Update and Appendix 2 included details of:

·           Clarification from the Highways Officer about the carriageway width in Hurst Road;

·           Clarification that the affordable housing provision exceeds the policy requirement;

·           Site levels in relation to historic flood level and maps;

·           Additional letters of objection, with Officers’ responses.


The following correction to the report was noted:

·           Agenda page 244 – in paragraph 22 reference to ‘MDD submission policy CC09’ should read ‘MDD policy CC09’ as the MDD is a fully adopted document in the Development Plan.


It was noted that Members had visited the site on 27 March 2015 to assess the impact on the character of the area, neighbouring properties and potential drainage issues.


Rob Yeadon, representing himself and other local residents, spoke objecting to the application.


Jim Bailey, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.


Dee Tomlin, a Local Ward Member, spoke objecting to the application.


The main concern locally was in relation to the potential for flooding on the site and the impact that building on the site would have on drainage and flooding at adjacent properties along Hurst Road.  There seemed to be confusion about which flood zones, the development site had been designated by the Environment Agency.  Copies of recent correspondence, indicating that the majority of the site was within Flood Zone 2 submitted by local residents including emails that they had with the Environment Agency were included in the Appendix 2 to the Members’ Update. 


However, the Case Officer had received information from the Environment Agency (EA), based on modelling, flood risk assessments and land surveys, which concluded that majority of the site is in Flood Zone 1, which is not reflected in the EA’s general/indicative Flood Map.  This had been confirmed by EA in an email included in the Members’ Update


Members commented that that site was wet/boggy when they visited the site, and concerns were expressed that the site was not suitable for housing development, and did not fulfil the requirements of the new Local Flood Risk Strategy.  Residents had given details of incidents of flooding.  Officers confirmed that a Flood Risk Assessment had been undertaken when the site had been allocated as suitable for residential development in the MDD (Managing Development Delivery) plan document in 2013.


The Officer from WSP, the Council’s drainage consultant, confirmed that the EA’s general Flood Map is an approximate map, but the detailed site specific technical information using recent modelling to support the application, indicates that the majority of the site is in Flood Zone 1 with a only a small section in Flood Zone 2; and that the site is above the 1000 flood level.  He said that building is allowed on land in Flood Zone 2.  Although concerns had been expressed about run-off/surface water drainage also having an effect on the site, the WSP Officer indicated that the site had been reassessed as preparation for the site drainage strategy.  Engineering solutions are proposed to make the drainage better on the site. 


Officers clarified that irrespective of the site designation in the indicative EA maps, the application had demonstrated that the proposed development was acceptable in flood risk terms, which was supported by WSP.  Subject to conditions, the proposal is acceptable on flood risk grounds.


A proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of surface/fluvial drainage issues and flooding concerns; not fulfilling the requirements of the Local Flood Risk Strategy; and the contradictory information from the Environment Agency, was not approved when put to the vote.


RESOLVED:  That application F/2014/2353 be approved, subject to the provisions of the Legal Agreement signed on 20 March 2015, as set out on Agenda page 247, and to the conditions set out on Agenda pages 228 to 236.

Supporting documents: