PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA - Hartlepool Borough Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.1 10.20 The site lies within an area at high risk of flooding from tidal sources. The applicant has completed a Flood Risk assessment in support of the application which concludes that the finished floor levels should be set no lower than 4.885m AOD and advises that comprehensive flood warning and evacuation procedures will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. It is considered that any flood risk issues could therefore be dealt with through appropriate conditions on site levels. DRAINAGE 10.21 The existing system has failed on several occasions and consequently sewage has flooded parts of the Marina. Concerns have therefore rightly been raised in relation to the adequacy of the existing drainage system to accommodate the additional flows from the site. The information provided by the applicant has been examined by our Engineering Consultancy who have concluded that it appears that the system is barely adequate to cope with existing flows. The Engineering Consultancy have advised that they have serious reservations about the practical adequacy of the foul system but would wish to reserve final judgement until a CCTV survey is provided and examined. However the applicant has appealed on the grounds of non determination and in light of this the matter cannot be further progressed at this time. It is considered at this time however that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a satisfactory means of disposal for sewage/effluent. In determining the appeal the Inspector will need to take view on this matter. SEA WALL & LOCK 10.22 Given the developments proximity to the sea wall and lock concerns have been raised in relation to the effect of the development on the foundations of the sea wall and in relation to access to these structures for maintenance. 10.23 In relation to the impact on the sea wall the applicant has submitted structural calculations and these have been assessed by our Engineering Consultancy. They have responded that they have no objections to the proposal on the grounds of its potential impact on the sea wall subject to appropriate conditions requiring further investigations. 10.24 In relation to the access to the sea wall lock the applicant has advised that a 5.5m wide clear zone will be accommodated to allow for access to the sea wall and this is acceptable to our Engineering Consultancy. This requirement could be conditioned. 10.25 In relation to access to the lock this is a matter for the operator of the Marina. 10.26 In determining the appeal clearly the Inspector will need to take view on whether the proposal is acceptable in relation to these issues. HARBOUR/ BOAT LIFT ACCESS 10.27 Concerns have been raised that the siting of the building will affect navigation of the dock. In particular it will obstruct a leading light located on, and visibility from, the Lock Masters Office. The applicant maintains that the building has been sited so 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 5
as to account for these matters. However this is essentially a matter for the operator of the Marina. In determining the appeal clearly the Inspector will need to take view on whether the proposed building will affect navigation. 10.28 In relation to the boatlift access the applicant has provided swept paths which indicate access for the boat lift can be accommodated. However again this is essential a matter for the operator of Marina. In determining the appeal clearly the Inspector will need to take view on whether the proposed building will affect access to the boatlift. Conclusion 10.29 The applicant has appealed to the Secretary of State on the grounds that the application has not been determined within the statutory period this Authority cannot therefore now determine the application. However the Authority needs to take a view as to what its decision would have been had it been free to determine the application. 10.30 In light of the issues raised above it is not considered that the current proposal can be supported. RECOMMENDATION : That authority be delegated to officers to fight the appeal. That subject to the final comments from Traffic Engineers the Secretary of State be advised that the Local Planning Authority is would have been minded to refuse the application had it been free to determine it for the following reasons. i) Given know concerns in relation to the adequacy of the existing drainage system serving the area the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a satisfactory means for the disposal of foul sewage/effluent arising from the development. 4.1 ii) iii) iv) The development does not accommodate adequate parking and it is considered that it would exacerbate existing parking problems and could result in inconsiderate parking to the detriment of highway safety. The building would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the adjacent building by reason of loss of light, outlook and over dominance. The applicant has not submitted sufficient information in order to demonstrate the risk of pollution to controlled waters is acceptable contrary to PPS23. 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 6
Page 1 and 2:
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA MEMBERS O
Page 3 and 4:
Planning Committee - Minutes and De
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Planning Committee - 25 th February
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Def Planning Committee - 25 th Febr
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
1 2 1 7 16 2 Planning Committee - 2
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
9 41 D ef RH 1 16 4 5 13 Planning C
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
1 12 2 11 1 2 16 Planning Committee
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
18 Planning Committee - 25 th Febru
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78: Planning Committee - 25 th February
Page 89 and 90: 6 2 5 2 3 1 15 11 9 3 1 7 60 56 54
Page 101 and 102: 406 416 Planning Committee - 25 th
Page 113 and 114: 188 192 93 303 1 305 1 3 16 29 23 3
Page 115 and 116: 4.1 UPDATE REPORT No: 4 Number: H/2
Page 117 and 118: 4.1 Application Reference No. : H/2
Page 119 and 120: 4.1 In the interests of highway saf
Page 121 and 122: 4.1 UPDATE REPORT No: 9 Number: H/2
Page 123 and 124: 4.1 In the interests of the amenity
Page 125 and 126: 4.1 Traffic & Transportation: Furth
Page 127: advised however that current govern
Page 131 and 132: 4.1 Vis ual Am enity 11.6 It is imp
Page 133 and 134: 4.1 3 Unless otherwise agreed in wr
Page 135 and 136: 4.1 Update Report No: 14 Number: H/
Page 137 and 138: 4.1 Other matters 14.14 Members may
Page 139 and 140: 4.1 UPDATE REPORT No: 15 Number: H/
Page 141 and 142: 4.1 UPDATE REPORT No: 16 Number: H/
Page 143 and 144: 4.1 Conclusion Although the buildin
Page 145 and 146: Planning Committee 25 th February 2
Page 147 and 148: Planning Committee 25 th February 2
Page 151 and 152: Planning Committee -25 th February
Page 161: Planning Committee -25 th February
Page 174: Planning Committee -25 th February
show all

PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA - Hartlepool Borough Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?