Local Development Framework Consultation

Thank you for your explanatory visit to my neighbour Mr N. Ballentyne's property on the morning of 12th. October which I too attended.
Arising from that visit, and prior to the revised submission deadline of noon 15th. October 2012, I would like to make the following observations in respect of the proposed submission to the Inspector:
• Contrary to our earlier correspondence in April this year I note that the plan as currently displayed on-line (Map 16 refers) in respect of that submission does NOT reflect the non-availability of the land adjacent to the eastern boundary of 'Laurel Bank'.
• Further to the provisions of the "National Planning Policy Framework", dated March 2012, with particular reference to para 212 in "Appendix 1 : Implementation" and to "Appendix 2 : Glossary" referring to "Previously developed land" which specifically addresses the exclusion of "private residential gardens", I confirm your attention was drawn to the fact that part of the subject Site immediately adjacent to the northern and western boundaries of my property comprise parts of such well established "private residential gardens" (namely those of "Laurel Bank" and "Rosecroft" and totalling only about 1250 sq.M). Consequently in this context I would suggest that this present Proposal does NOT therefore comply with the requirements of the "NPPF" in respect of such "material considerations".
• I also note that the "NPPF", in paras 99 and 100, requires that any Local Plan / development must take into account any present or future flooding risks. In this context I would draw your attention to the substantial recent (essentially post- Pear Tree Farm development) correspondence with SLDC in respect of flooding on my land arising from the sole drainage pipe for the subject Site which passes through my property. Although this matter has been pragmatically resolved with relatively minor current impacts, the surface water run-off from the subject Site passes through that pipe which presently only copes with about 90% of the flow from a "1year storm" leading to localised flooding (obviously if the "30year storm" condition is considered such percentage would be considerably lower). However the inevitable reduction in the 'time of concentration' caused by the development of the catchment area, which comprises the subject Site, will considerably increase such peak flow causing a substantial flood risk. Taking into account the location of this pipe through already fully developed private properties "downstream" of the Site it is unlikely that the riparian owners, including the Highway Authority, could accommodate any upgrading of that watercourse that would be necessary to handle such future storm flows.

In the light of the above I trust that these points will be passed to the Inspector, unless of course you see fit to amend/update your proposals accordingly prior to your submission..