PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA - Hartlepool Borough Council

4.1
UPDATE
No: 10
Number:
H/2008/0494
Applicant:
Mr Allan Henderson
Agent:
England & Lyle Morton House Morton Road
DARLINGTON DL1 4PT
Date valid: 14/08/2008
Development: Erection of a two-storey boat showroom and restaurant
Location:
SLAKE TERRACE HARTLEPOOL
10.1 This application appears on the main agenda at item 10.
10.2 The recommendation was left open as a number of issues were outstanding.
Consultations
10.3 The following additional consultation replies have been received:
Engineering Consultancy: From a structural viewpoint we have no objections to the
proposal conditional upon the investigation work detailed being undertaken and the
opportunity being given to ourselves to view the investigatory work as it is being
carried out.
The drainage details submitted contain a topographic survey and a foul design for
the system. However, at the meeting on the 16-12-2008 with Colin Cook of the JNP
Group it was confirmed that the physical CCTV survey of the foul system was still
required, as had been previously requested. This survey is required to ascertain any
physical defects, or other poor workmanship such as hogging or sagging of pipes, or
displaced joints, poor benching etc. As such it should be confirmed to the applicant
that this CCTV survey is still required. The foul design appears to confirm that in
theoretical terms the existing foul system is barely adequate for the development. It
identifies pipes which are bordering on being at substandard gradients and design
flow velocities which could be the root cause of the recurring blockage problems in
the system overall. This reinforces the argument for conducting a CCTV survey.
Indeed there are pipes identified with totally substandard gradients, but these are
secondary to the pipe runs serving the development, but nevertheless could be
indirectly affecting the main system. Because of the above I have serious
reservations about the practical adequacy of the foul system and would wish to
reserve final judgement until a CCTV survey is provided and examined.
I welcome the statement in the letter that 5.5m clearance will be provided for access.
However, it should be noted that drawing 1120-111 rev B submitted at the same time
appears to be slightly at variance with the statement, since the clearance zone
radius point is on the outside corner of the flood wall, not the inside. I assume the
drawing can be corrected to agree with the statement.
W:\CSword\Democratic Ser vices\COMMITTEES\PLANNING CTTEE\R eports \Reports - 2008 - 2009\09.02.25\Updat es\4.1 -
Planni ng - 09. 02. 25 - 10 - RPS Slake Tce.DOC 1