Response from Mr R B F Nicholson (Individual)
1. Mr R B F Nicholson (Individual) : 9 Jan 2018 13:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Have you any other comments about the Draft Development Brief and the Draft Supporting Contextual Information Document?
Further to your email dated 14 December 2017, I have downloaded the latest version of your above Brief and, with particular respect to the Surface Water Drainage aspects therein, I would now additionally comment as follows:
1. In your eagerness to “push” this flawed scheme, I am concerned that in these latest proposals you have elected to effectively ignore the considered professional opinions expressed on the relevant technical aspects as set forth in my earlier “Comments” on the previous proposals which were forwarded to you under cover of my email dated 17 May 2017.
2. I do note, however, that in the introductory section (para. 3.1 refers) you state that in respect to “existing soakaways within site” the hard-surface water drainage for the earlier “Pear Tree Park - Phase 4” is to such features. Notwithstanding the extensive discussions with SLDC Planning, both after the publication of the related Planning Application for that development in 2006 and through to 2011, the impact of that Development on the local Surface Water Drainage has been disastrous and exacerbated by that decision. At the time I was led to understand that such run off was to be piped off site, however, your above advice further confirms the inadequate technical understanding of SLDC Planners at that time. The basis for that comment is that the local topography comprises the bottom of an ancient glacially eroded valley, such that in the relevant area the subsoil (located immediately below the overlying organic topsoil) comprises a light grey silty very fine glacial till which, even without the resources of a geotechnical laboratory, is clearly impermeable. A necessary corollary of this is that any run off directed to such soakaways merely fills them up and then they overflow into the surrounding area and onwards into the prevailing surface water system. The protracted ongoing problems and the existence of the extensive boggy/waterlogged area in the field comprising the Eastern part of the Site clearly confirms that this is and remains a significant problem.
3. Since that earlier set of Comments, and prior to the substantial flooding events experienced in Holme in late November 2017, excessive short term (2 to 7 days) run off flooding, both to my property and to the property immediately downstream (The Rookery) instigated, inter alia, a thorough jet cleaning of the piping system as far as where SLDC (as the Highway Authority) take over responsibility for what is the sole outfall for the proposed Development Site. (NB. United Utilities were approached, on the basis that this watercourse was a combined drain, but refused to act on he basis that as this water flow did not feed into the local sewerage plant it was outwith their responsibility). Since this area still has intermittent flooding due to this drain being blocked downstream, it is clearly incumbent upon SLDC to “put their house in order” and execute extensive maintenance works on that section of the watercourse.
4. Whilst your proposed Brief still averts to approximately 70+ dwellings on this Development you do not properly address sewerage aspects of proposed Development, whereby the removal of an additional circa 30,000 Litres of effluent (treated or raw) arising from those Dwellings has not been addressed in your draft. As highlighted in my earlier “Comments”, this aspect has to assume a primary importance, since the validity of the scheme has to be predicated by the number of dwellings to be constructed, and the constraints imposed by the already “marginal” capacity of the only outfall and the Site boundaries do not allow for any means of disposal via customary means.
I look forward to hearing from your representatives at the upcoming Holme Parish Hall meeting as to how you can overcome the technical problems and thereby justify proceeding with this Proposal.
For your ease of reference I attach a further copy of those earlier “Comments” which should be considered in conjunction with the above.
Regards,
R.B.F. Nicholson, C.Eng,, M.I.C.E.
(Stakeholder – as Owner of “Silvercroft”)
