APPEALS BY BARBERRY DROITWICH LIMITED (APPEAL A) &
PERSIMMON HOMES LTD & PROWTING PROJECTS LTD (APPEAL B)
APPEAL A REF: APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
APPEAL B REF: APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
LAND AT PULLEY LANE, NEWLAND ROAD AND PRIMSLAND WAY
& LAND NORTH OF PULLEY LANE AND NEWLAND LANE,
NEWLAND, DROITWICH SPA.
WYCHAVON DISTRICT COUNCIL REFERENCES:
BARBERRY DROITWICH LTD:
PERSIMMON HOMES LTD & PROWTING PROJECTS LTD:
REPRESENTATION BY JOHN BRASS
LOCAL RESIDENT OF
16 ISAACS WAY, DROITWICH
JANUARY 2014
Updated, February 2014
W/11/01073
W/12/02336
PREFACE
The first version of this document was sent to PINS on 16th January
2014. Since then it has been circulated to all parties and letters of
rebuttal (BDL2 and BDL3) have been presented in evidence at this
Inquiry. Originally section 4 was a request to the Inspector to include
certain locations in his site visit, but my representation was rescheduled until today, after the site visit.
It has therefore been necessary to make certain updates to this
representation, and especially to section 4.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
My name is John Brass. My family and I live at 16 Isaacs Way,
Droitwich. We have lived at this address for more than 12 years.
1.2
As a local resident who would be directly affected by the proposals
to build a foul water sewer less than 1m from my lounge, I am
deeply worried by these plans. My knowledge as a chartered
engineer serves to strengthen my worries.
1.3
In this document I will use information from some of the
Appellants’ own supporting documents in their original planning
applications to show how the proposals for a new sewer adjacent to
our house would neither be safe nor sustainable. I also request for
the Inspector to make a site visit to view the features I talk about
in this document. I will also summarise the locations I asked the
Inspector to look at during the site visit yesterday.
2. THE SEWER PROPOSALS
2.1
Within the planning application documents for W/11/01073, the
subject of Appeal A, there is a document entitled “Drainage
Strategy”. On page 14 in section 5.1.2 there is a proposal for a foul
sewer connection in Isaacs Way designed to pass between numbers
Representation by John Brass, local resident
Page 2
14 and 16 on the south side of Isaacs Way “along an existing
footpath with agreement of the landowner”.
2.2
On the Severn Trent Water website there is an advice document
titled “The Consequences Of A Water Or Sewerage Undertaker’s
Assets Passing Through Land”. This document was attached to Mr
Richard Pettit’s proof of evidence as Appendix K. According to this
document they require a minimum 5.0m “Protected Width Strip” for
access and maintenance to buried sewers. In fact, an easement of
this width was completed on the directly opposite (north) side of
Isaacs Way when the houses were originally built.
2.3
My own measurements of the width available at the footpath
between numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs Way are as follows:
a)
Building to building
4.17m approx.
b)
Boundary to boundary
1.30m approx.
The footpath between numbers 14
and 16 Isaacs Way on the day of the
site visit.
2.4
It is therefore apparent that there is insufficient width between
numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs Way for this sewer proposal; firstly to
allow working space to construct a sewer without encroaching on
private land; and secondly to provide sufficient easement for
Severn Trent to maintain the sewer without encroaching on private
Representation by John Brass, local resident
Page 3
land. No approach has been made to me by the developers for
permission to encroach on my land. In document BDL3, three
possible alternatives to a foul water outfall into Isaacs Way are
offered, and two of them involve a pumping station. Without
prejudice to the outcome of this Public Inquiry, can a condition be
applied such that there are sufficient measures at the pumping
station to prevent overflow during a period of breakdown until
repairs are completed. If foul water overflow does occur at this
north west corner of the proposed development, then the foul
water may drain away by gravity towards Isaacs Way along the
footpath between numbers 14 and 16 in the same way that surface
water currently does. Without prejudice to the outcome of this
Public Inquiry, can a condition also be applied to mitigate the noise
from the pumping station, especially during night-time pumping.
2.5
Within the planning application documents for W/12/02336, the
subject of Appeal B, there is a document entitled “Phase 1
Appraisal”. On page 106 of the PDF file there is a drawing derived
from the British Geological Survey with the title “Ground
Dissolution Soluble Rocks Map (BGS)”. This map shows that our
house at 16 Isaacs Way and the proposed foul sewer route
adjacent to it are in an area of brine run risk where “construction
work may cause subsidence”. Document BDL2, on page two,
claims that this phrase is misleading. It is not my phrase, it is
taken directly from the map on PDF page 106 of the “Phase 1
Appraisal” report which forms part of the Persimmon planning
application.
2.6
Within the conveyance documents for our house we have a letter
from Johnson Poole and Bloomer dated Oct 2000 which confirms
that 16 Isaacs Way is within Zone B of the brine run risk area.
2.7
On page 119 of the PDF file, the “Phase 1 Appraisal” document
referenced in point 2.5 above contains a report from Johnson Poole
and Bloomer which in section 5.8 discusses foundation design for
Representation by John Brass, local resident
Page 4
Zone B. Section 5.8 c) recommends “reinforced semi-raft or ring
beam type foundations” with a minimum span of 3m.
2.8
I submit to the Inspector that the existing foundations at 16 Isaacs
Way were not designed or built with this future sewer in mind, and
that the construction of the proposed sewer between 0.9m and
1.3m from the foundations of our house would damage those
foundations. Our foundations were specially designed for zone B,
and not for a future drainage trench parallel to a main structural
wall and within such close proximity. I also submit that such a
sewer, buried into the unstable ground of Zone B, would be at a
higher risk of fracture and create an ongoing a potential
maintenance, leakage, and public health problem for the
neighbourhood. BDL2 points out that measured zone B ground
movements are “only minor”, but why is zone B defined at all
unless there is a higher risk than in non-zoned areas?
3. CONCLUSION
3.1
Given the facts in points 2.1 to 2.7 above, I submit to the Inspector
that a new foul water sewer (or a surface water drain) in this
location between numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs Way would not be safe
or sustainable, and that its construction should not even be
attempted.
4. SUMMARY OF MY REQUESTED FOR SITE VISIT
4.1
During the site visit yesterday, the Inspector will have seen the
width of the footpath between numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs Way, and
the distance between the buildings. He may reach his own
conclusions as to the practicality of constructing and maintaining a
foul water sewer beneath the footpath.
4.2
The Inspector will have also seen the flow of surface water run-off
from the hill on the footpath between numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs
Way due to overnight rain. This is a regular occurrence.
Representation by John Brass, local resident
Page 5
4.3
By taking a walk to the top of the footpath, the Inspector will have
seen the character of the existing view over Yew Tree Hill from that
place, how the location is at a low point of a surface water
catchment area, and the location suggested for a foul water
pumping station by document BDL3.
4.4
At the site visit location which I requested in Rebekah Gardens, the
Inspector will have seen the criblock wall construction that holds
back the ground supporting Newland Road, with its proposed bus
route and also the “option 3” foul water sewer proposal that is part
of appeal B. The “option 2” foul water sewer connects to Rebekah
Gardens at this location. This location is on the boundary between
zones A and B of the brine run according to the reference in point
2.5 above, and this is also confirmed by document B29.
4.5
May I respectfully request the Inspector to visit this location on the
day of his site visit? The reasoning being to view these details, and
to walk up the footpath between numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs Way as
far as the stile and the bottom of the field which is at the bottom of
the surface water catchment for this part of the development - a
distance of some 30 to 40 metres. If the visit can be scheduled for
a specific time I can take time off work to be available to answer
any questions that the Inspector may have.
4.6
May I also request that whilst in the area the Inspector should
progress up Isaacs Way to Rebekah Gardens and take a look from
the bottom of the wooden criblok wall? This criblok wall holds back
the ground supporting Newland Road, with its proposed bus route
and also the “option 2” foul water sewer proposal that is part of
appeal B. This location is inside the high risk Zone A of the brine
run according to the reference in point 2.1 above and is worthy of a
closer look within that context.
Representation by John Brass, local resident
Page 6