Prospective Plot

[Stewpot]

I'd be grateful if someone could help me get a better understanding of some planning matters.

 

I'm looking at a plot in Scotland which has had Outline Planning Permission (and more latterly, Permission in Principle) since 1997, or possibly earlier. However, I can trace few documents earlier than the 2009 renewal - neither council, nor vendor seem to have archives going back further.

 

However, the planning officer's report that accompanied the 2009 renewal contained this paragraph:

"This site has had outline planning permission for a house in 1997, and again in 2004... During the processing of the 2004 application, the biggest difficulties have been related to the ground conditions and addressing satisfactory drainage. A structural engineer’s report was received which has answered the concerns of Building Control and SEPA, basically resulting in a gabioned outfall to the adjacent burn which will have to be designed by a specialist."

 

I cannot locate a copy of this engineer's report, but I have got the approval document for the 2004 application, and all renewals since. None of them make any reference to the report. Given the nature of the comment above, do the recommendations in the report somehow constitute a part of the approval? If so, will it be implicitly applied to all subsequent renewals?

 

Also, is it odd that the 1997 approval did not seem to depend upon an engineer's report, when the following renewal did? It took over two years for the 2004 renewal application to be approved, so I would guess there were site conditions that were a major stumbling block until the report recommended solutions to them.

 

I won't go into too much detail, but the site does have a major surface water drainage issue, and possibly ground stability, too, it being made-up ground on a slope (though seems to have been like that for several decades). I am not trying to find a way to avoid the work required to address the issues, but I am trying to understand how the engineer's report fits in to the planning process.

[Thedreamer]

Where in Scotland, further up north, the more relaxed the rules (unofficially) are.

 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Thedreamer

[NSS]

How many times has ownership of the plot changed in that time? If each application has followed a change of owner, it may suggest each have subsequently concluded that it wasn't viable/economic to build it and sold to cut their losses. Of course, unviable then doesn't necessarily mean it's still unviable, but there's usually a good reason why plots either don't sell or don't get built.

[ProDave]

As time goes on, the requirements for "reports" seem to increase.  My first plot in 2003 had no such needs. This one did, and the requirements for things like visibility splays seem to keep being added to.

 

So it sounds like the ground conditions are no good for a drainage infiltration field.  The GOOD news is you have access to a burn.

 

There are some hoops to jump through with SEPA to get permission to discharge into the burn.  It is not a automatic right like it seems to be in England and generally they will allow it if there is no other option.  We had to submit two different drainage plans to building control, who rejected them, before SEPA allowed us to discharge to the burn.

 

You can probably simplify that process by getting a report done that shows (by percolation tests for example) that an infiltration field will not work, and recommends discharge to the burn.

 

In order to discharge to the burn you will need to use a treatment plant, not a septic tank, but you would be well advised to do that anyway.

 

The Gabion thing probably emphasises the soil conditions and suggests without something like that, just poking a discharge pipe out of the bank may lead to the bank disintegrating, but again not a problem.

 

Perhaps of more concern is the ground conditions for building. You do not want a lot of peat for example.

 

Long lapsed planning is not on it's own a problem.  My plot I am building on had PP in 1980 but was never built on, it was not hard to get PP re instated.

 

Re PIP or outline,  Planning In Principle is simply the name given in Scotland to what everyone else knows as Outline Planning Permisson.

[Ferdinand]

Often documents farther back can be seen by a physical inspection of the Planning File ie go to the Council Office, get the file and go right through it.

[Ed Davies]

I got my warrant about 5 years ago. Talking to SEPA,  first they wanted to know if I'd had a percolation test: "yes, it doesn't”, “doesn't what?”, “percolate, at all”, “ah, ok”. Then they were OK about discharge to a “water course” but, even though the treatment plant puts out water that's theoretically clean enough for discharge into a water course, they still wanted a rumbling drain at least 50 metres long between the treatment plant and the water course. I'd guess that any more complicated engineering is to otherwise filter the output of the treatment plant if 50 metres isn't available for that.

 

ProDave didn't need that much but maybe the application of the rules varies a bit: we're both in Highland but I'd assume he was dealing with a different SEPA office (mine's in Thurso).

[ProDave]

I had to provide a "partial soakaway" between the treatment plant and the discharge.  This is where it all gets silly.  Building regs say an "infiltraton field" must be 10 metres from a road and 10 metres from a watercourse.  That just leaves me a little strip down the middle of the plot that complies with that, which is why BC rejected any other proposal. So I have just that little strip to create my "partial soakaway" then it goes back to solid pipe for the last 10 metres before discharging into the burn.

 

If you applied an ounce of common sense to that, you would say well it's going to end up in the burn anyway, so why not make a larger partial soakaway that goes right up to the edge of the burn, but no you are not allowed to have a soakaway within 10 metres of the burn.  I had reached the point of not caring that they were being silly.

[Stewpot]

Thanks, all for your replies.

 

I, too, have wondered why the plot has been available for so long. It was very over priced, which may have been a large part of it. I managed to negotiate a 40% reduction in price, which makes the site very much more attractive. But I'm wondering if this structural engineer's report indicates that something more serious is afoot.

 

So, the immediate issue I'd like to understand more about, is how the structural engineer's report impinges upon the PP. All I know about it is the comment made in the 2009 officer's report, and the implication is that the engineer's report contains recommendations which make the site viable.

 

So, is the PP (and all subsequent renewals) in some way dependent upon the SE's report - eg. without being able to produce the report, getting further plans approved will fail, or, without implementing it's recommendations, the build will contravene planning (or BC) conditions? In other words, is any development on the site locked in to the SE's report?

 

Or is it more the case that the planning department has been shown an example of how the issues may be addressed (other solutions may also be possible), and that has enabled them to grant PP?

 

The site is in the Scottish Borders area, by the way.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Stewpot

[Ed Davies]

3 hours ago, Stewpot said:

Or is it more the case that the planning department has been shown an example of how the issues may be addressed (other solutions may also be possible), and that has enabled them to grant PP?

 

I doubt anybody on here knows any more than you (hence the lack of quicker response) but looking at the way planning and building control works in general, yes, this version where there may be other alternative solutions which are acceptable seems much more likely. I really doubt that a previous OPP or PPIP would specifically bind any future applications to a particular solution.

[Temp]

23 hours ago, Stewpot said:

I am trying to understand how the engineer's report fits in to the planning process.

 

At least four possibilities...

 

1)  A potential buyer got the report done as part of his due diligence checks.

2) The applicant anticipated an objection on the ground of surface water so got the report done and submitted it with an application at some stage.

3) It was requested during discussions with the planners prior to an application.

4) It was requested to satisfy a planning condition.

 

If you haven't already done so ask the planners to see all planning files relating to the site. We found there were at least three sets of documents for our site (in England)...

 

* The online documents.

* The official planning file which was virtually identical to the online version.

* The planning officers own file that had documents such as correspondence with previous owners. 

 

There were also documents filed under different references..eg  "Land north of..." and "Land south of...". When I asked to see the planning file for "Land north of.." I wasn't also given the file for "Land south of.." Once I discovered multiple files existed I was able to make an appointment to see them. Not sure if that's still possible or you can only see the online files these days.

 

 

 

[Stewpot]

Thanks, Temp.

 

I think it would be 2) or 3). I don't think there has been a previous potential buyer, and there seem to be no special conditions relating to this. It's this last point that puzzles me, really. The vendor isn't being overly helpful on this matter (which may be legitimate - I think she has just inherited the site, and so probably knows little about its planning history). But I worry that a copy of the engineer's report wasn't kept with the approval documents; this suggests it may have contained bad, rather than good, news.

 

I think my concern really is the mention of a gabioned outfall that would need to be designed by a specialist - 'gabions' suggest potentially unstable land, and 'specialists' suggest unreasonably large bills. On top of which, installing gabions at the foot of the bank may be difficult - access would be a problem.

 

On the face of it, dealing with surface water (even quite a lot of it) shouldn't be too difficult, should it? Especially as there is a burn running adjacent to the site. However, this is made-up ground on a slope, so I worry about long term stability of the ground.

 

I have asked the LPA to check their archives, but they say it will be January before thay can get back to me.

[ProDave]

Can you post any pictures of the plot?

[Stewpot]

It's very overgrown, so photos, at this stage don't really show the lay of the land very well. It is also a curving shape that tucks round a bank, before dropping steeply down to the burn several meters below, which makes it hard to get into a snapshot.

 

I can post pictures of brambles, shrubbery and mud, but I don't think you'd gain much from seeing them. Also, at the pre-contract stage of things, I'd feel it would be unwise to identify the site too closely on a public forum. Later on, maybe, if things work out, I can try.

[ProDave]

What is the present or previous use of the land? Are other buildings around?  At this time of year it is bound to be muddy but are we talking welly sucking mud? 

[Stewpot]

The part of the site where the house will sit is made-up ground on the side of a half-acre slope leading down to a tree lined burn. Lovely and idyllic.

 

Apparently, the site was at one time the dumping ground for spoil from a nearby small quarry. I doubt the quarry has been active in living memory, and historical maps show it in existence in 1858 or earlier. Local information suggests the ground was leveled, possibly as long ago as the 1960s. Mature trees around the edge of the leveled area would support this and would suggest the made-up ground is now well consolidated. But it is very wet.

 

In my estimation, the wet conditions are the result of two things (at least):

1) the made-up area is obstructing the natural flow of surface water down the slope to the burn

2) there is a ditch on the opposite side of the lane that deals mainly with seepage from the adjacent sloping field. At some point in history, this ditch has been culverted under the lane and outfalls directly onto the made-up ground, saturating it. When I've been on site, I would guestimate there is a flow of a gallon or more per minute. I would also guess that the culvert existed before the ground was made up, and would originally simply have formed a trickle down the bank to the burn below.

 

I would have though it was fairly straight forward to form a gully under the outfall from the culvert, and pipe that underground toward the burn, away from the building area. And also tread the remaining area similarly with land drains. A domestic treatment plant should be all that's needed to deal with foul waste.

 

But apparently, the LPA are thinking in terms of gabioned outfalls, and without knowing the details, I fear this has the potential to make the site unviable for my purposes.

[ProDave]

Reading all that about made up ground, almost certainly means piled foundations.   I doubt any other solution would prove stable enough.

 

Our first plot, unknown to us, was made up ground.  That too was a sloping site down to the burn that had been infilled to make it more level.  In that case the infill was only about 2ft deep at the worst point, but it meant the strip foundations went down nearly 6 feet at the deepest point to get to original firm ground. 

 

Dealing with the drainage as you suggest will dry the ground, but it won't solve it being made up, and I would be surprised if there was any option other than piles.

 

The gabion thing is trivial.  Some Gabion baskets set down into the bank, filled with stone, and the discharge pipe emerging through the gabions at an appropriate level.

[Ed Davies]

If you're piling anyway, how about putting the house completely above ground level and just letting the water flow under it so no need to mess with drainage other than water off the roof.

[Ferdinand]

I would do an appropriately worded FOI request to the Council to fish for more information. Cost is nothing.

[Stewpot]

Stop Press! A minor miracle has happened.

I've just received an email from the estate agent; the vendor has found a copy of the engineer's report.

I need to spend more time with it, but on the face of it, it answers most of my concerns:

The gabioned outfall for both surface water and treatment plant is simply a gabion mattress down the bank to the burn. And that's only a suggestion, instead of a piped outlet. So the gabions aren't required to shore up the bank, which was my fear.

Load bearing capacity 85kN/m2.

Foundations "would most likely take the form of conventional strip foundations." I must say, I had been anticipating piled foundations of some sort. In fact, I may actually prefer them, given the nature of the site, but I'll deal with that in due course.

This is my bedtime reading sorted out for a while.

Thanks for everyone's input.

[ProDave]

If there are any pictures or diagrams in that report it would be interesting to see them, I can't imagine what a gabion mattress is at the moment.

[Ferdinand]

10 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If there are any pictures or diagrams in that report it would be interesting to see them, I can't imagine what a gabion mattress is at the moment.

 

Thick terram made out of gabions ?

 

[Stewpot]

30 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If there are any pictures or diagrams in that report it would be interesting to see them, I can't imagine what a gabion mattress is at the moment.

 

It's basically a flat version of a gabion that lies on the ground.

 

But I am puzzled by it's use here. What purpose is it serving? Any water flowing over the top of the mattress will surely run to the underside of the mattress and make its way down the slope along the ground underneath. Over time, a natural watercourse will simply form under the mattress, and it becomes irrelevant. If there was an impermeable layer specified to lie under the mattress, that would make more sense, but there isn't.

 

The report says:

"The direct discharge to the burn will be difficult to construct due to the steepness of the valley slopes. It may be easier to allow the discharge to run through/over a series of gabion mattresses which have been laid down the face of the slope rather than try to install a piped outlet to the watercourse."

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Stewpot

[ProDave]

It looks like the bank is quite long and steep.  You would have to run the pipe a long way down and build the head wall much lower to have a direct discharge pipe.  Then it runs the risk of being flooded with the burn in spate?

 

As long as you lay teram or similar membrane before laying the mattress I can't see an issue with erosion.  It does not look too difficult to build.  As long as SEPA are happy I would just do that.

[Ferdinand]

The Gabion Mattresses are creating a stable drainage layer afaics, and/or preventing the existing surface from moving.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Stewpot]

I guess it will all become clear in due course - I've just instructed a solicitor to formalise my offer for the plot.