Permission Granted!

[OldYeller]

Hi Folks,

 

Good news! our full planning application has been approved for demolition and re-build!

 

Now the celebrations are over, I am struggling with one of the planning conditions as follows:

 

"Condition. The access shall be constructed with adequate drainage measures to prevent surface water runoff onto the adjacent public highways, in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason. To prevent surface water discharging to the highway."

 

The problem is that the plot is at a higher elevation than the highway and the existing access (tarmac over concrete) has a steep gradient towards the highway.

Our plans have stated that we will reduce this gradient but it will still slope down towards the road.

 

To compound the issue, another condition states that "a metalled surface must be applied for 5m back from the highway".

 

There is a steep banked grass verge each side of the entrance so no real possibility of a soakaway near the bottom of the slope. Presumably I am not allowed to connect to the rainwater drain on the edge of the highway?

 

I have attached a photo of the existing entrance.

 

My questions are:

1) Is this a pre-commencement condition that must be discharged before work starts on site?

2) How can I solve the issue of drainage at the bottom of the slope when there is nowhere to discharge water to?

3) Can a permeable surface be classed as a metalled surface?

4) Is a permeable surface on the slope likely to satisfy the surface drainage requirement?

 

Many thanks for any advice!

 

[PeterW]

Sounds like the LA want you to submit design. You’ll need to dig down under the slope, and then return the outlet from an Acco drain back under the driveway. 
 

Permeable tarmac will help, but they will need one or more Acco drains in the slope. 

[markc]

Congratulations!

You may get away with a drain near the top of the slope to prevent water run off. the argument being that had the drive not been there, any rain landing on the existing bank would run onto the road and you have taken measure to prevent the house/site contributing

[Thorfun]

is this something worth speaking to a civil engineer about? it might be worth paying for that design to ensure it all works. 

 

just a thought.

 

congratulations on your planning approval and good luck with your journey! ? 

[Bitpipe]

Well done! Good advice above.

 

Pre-commencement conditions are usually clearly flagged as such with language like 'before any construction commences..' etc. You also get ones like 'before the dwelling is occupied' etc.

 

 

[saveasteading]

You appear to already have a 'metalled' driveway, albeit in need of repair. The condition is to ensure that your mud and grit does not go on the highway. Also gives you good traction at this important area, onto and off the highway.

 

Drainage is mostly to  prevent water running on the highway and freezing.

Secondary is to reduce rain load on existing drainage.

 

The proper job is a drain at the foot of the driveway and getting the water away to soakaway adjacent or pumped back up to the top.

You could possibly get permission for a solid permeable driveway (special blocks) from the road all the way up. However, if I was the planner, I would want proof of design, and that would probably entail a very large depth of clean stone, and then a soakaway that can be proven.

I doubt if permeable tarmac will work at that slope, and poss same issue with blocks. 

 

solution:

Gut feeling.....aco type drain at bottom, feeding small manhole. Pump back up to top and to soakaway in the grounds. Cost £3,000, if along with main job.

 

Then surface dress the tarmac.

 

Try to get permission for the drain being 600mm or more uphill. This will avoid having to use approved highway contractors, and traffic control.

 

This needs a formal proposal to the planner, and the timescale will be on your permission.

Use a Chartered Civil Engineer for the design. The design will then be appropriate and accepted. Without, they will probably ask you for a lot more proofs.

Get their suggestions first without mentioning mine or others above...they may have another idea, but not necessarily know the cost differentials.

 

 

 

[dpmiller]

Are they specifically referring to runoff from the *slope* or rather the hardstanding within the site? I'd contend that the current solution is accepted and have an Acco at the TOP to stop anything going down the slope...

[saveasteading]

 

55 minutes ago, dpmiller said:

runoff from the *slope* or rather the hardstanding

 

I know of what I speak, on this subject anyway. It is to keep all site water off the road, so it has to be at the bottom. It is a permissible condition, and commendable,  to make the road safer.

 

If it was an extension then you might try to argue against it, but this is all new.

 

There is more rainfall, and certainly increased storm quantity, in recent years.

 

 

You have a point re hard standings, if they might also slope in that direction. Whatever water will run down there, from hardstandings or the ramp, must be caught by the drain or drains. Therefore it is a complex calculation of area and rainfall event quantity, then drain, pump and soakaway capacity.

 

[gravelrash]

if you are not in a rush Appeal the condition...it already has an existing driveway and the LPA would have a hard job refusing a replacement house. You can run the appeal alongside the demolition and build.

[joe90]

Why not ask the planners what they would accept/want?

[Gone West]

11 hours ago, joe90 said:

Why not ask the planners what they would accept/want?

Good luck trying that. At my last place after the planners had vetoed another design I asked them what they would like, and was told it's not our job to do the design, just to consider yours.

[joe90]

3 minutes ago, Gone West said:

Good luck trying that.

As much as I hate planners (generally) just being hopeful that a simple (cheap) question might produce some idea ?‍♂️

[OldYeller]

Thanks for the replies and suggestions.

 

The highway actually goes downhill across the entrance of my driveway entrance so in reality any runoff flows to the lowest point and makes its way along the roadside channel to the road drain.

I could argue that it's been like this since 1956 with no deaths or accidents!

 

I was thinking of speaking to Building Control about it as surely it's more of a BC matter?

If BC suggest/accept a solution, wouldn't that be good enough to satisfy the planners?

 

Thanks!

 

[Bitpipe]

3 minutes ago, OldYeller said:

Thanks for the replies and suggestions.

 

The highway actually goes downhill across the entrance of my driveway entrance so in reality any runoff flows to the lowest point and makes its way along the roadside channel to the road drain.

I could argue that it's been like this since 1956 with no deaths or accidents!

 

I was thinking of speaking to Building Control about it as surely it's more of a BC matter?

If BC suggest/accept a solution, wouldn't that be good enough to satisfy the planners?

 

Thanks!

 

 

I don't think it is a BC matter if it impacts highway safety per @saveasteading's comment.

 

Also, reading your condition again, the LPA need to sign off your proposed design before you implement it, however it should not delay other works to your build.

 

So BC may have an opinion but you still need to submit a design to your planners for approval.

[joe90]

Thinking back to my planning fight including a new entrance, the “verge” is deemed as part of the highway, therefore your boundary is back from the roadway a little, could you not put an atco drain across your drive at this point which gives you enough room to dig a soakaway at either or one end just behind this demarcation line in your property?

[joth]

40 minutes ago, OldYeller said:

The highway actually goes downhill across the entrance of my driveway entrance so in reality any runoff flows to the lowest point and makes its way along the roadside channel to the road drain.

I could argue that it's been like this since 1956 with no deaths or accidents!

 

 

My understanding this is far more about flood prevention at large, than solving a specific hot spot at the end of your driveway in particular. See https://www.building.co.uk/comment/suds-law-sustainable-drainage-systems/5038190.article

- As more land is paved over, more water ends up in the city drains and running out via large rivers creating flood risks along them, rather than getting into the ground locally and thus into the aquifer that feed smaller streams and sustaining the wildlife there.  The SuDs laws are intended to have more water go into local soak away, and less down the LPA drains. No individual building application will make or break it, but at large they need to be enforcing the spirit of it in order to achieve a net reduction (or at least, no increase) in water heading out to LPA drains.

 

If you richer in time than cash, one idea would be to submit a schedule with the acco at the top of the drive only, see if they approve that, if not resubmit it half way down, and then a couple feet from  the bottom. They may get the idea and open a conversation about what they would consider acceptable .  

The major cost of doing it lower down is you'll need to dig your own soakaway much much lower under your plot in order to allow the run off to flow back under the drive into it.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by joth

[scottishjohn]

very common condition  and round here it is a std condition

 also any gates --have to be set back 6m so you can open up gate go through it and then shut gate -so you are not sat on road while doing it either entering or leaving

 drain across the road and a big soakaway cage buried in your garden is the answer.

 they even specified that on my plot where there are no roads drains and have never been for last 200 years 

 suck it up and do what they ask -if thats only condition then its not a biggy anyway  and it needs to done before end of build and habitation 

 to be honest i have seen lots that never bother and have not been picked up on it  in my area --

how lucky do you feel ?

Edited July 14, 2021 by scottishjohn

[Mr Punter]

Why not just submit plans to discharge the condition that show the existing driveway being retained as is?

[Ferdinand]

I thought the general principle was that runoff could not be increased? It certainly is for housing estates.

 

Could you try and get it rewritten as that, instead? I would need to do some research to know how I would argue that, if it were feasible. And I am not sure there is a suitable a to b to c planning strategy that can help.

 

I might go for one of those wotsit-drains where the gates are, and a soakaway / pond / bog-garden inside the gate. 

 

And...

 

Remember that there is a process to vary a condition.

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

On 13/07/2021 at 14:37, OldYeller said:

...

1) Is this a pre-commencement condition that must be discharged before work starts on site?

...

 

No.

For a condition to qualify as a pre-condition , the Planners must state that the condition as a pre-condition. 

You may pass Go, and collect £200.

Congratulations.

 

Welcome to the Sleepless Nights Club. You get used to it after a bit.

[Gone West]

At our last house we were supposed to have roof drainage dealt with on site but there wasn't enough room so I spoke to the local highways office and BC, and as a result we were allowed to discharge onto the lane. This then ran down to to a ditch a couple of hundred yards away.

[OldYeller]

Thanks everyone!

 

I think I will go down the route of trying for small incremental improvements based on the argument that whatever I do, it will be better than what already exists.

 

The current hard standing area will be improved as there is currently no surface water drainage at all.

 

Also, the front rainwater downpipe currently connects into the foul drainage which I will obviously change to a new soakaway.

 

This should hopefully be a good enough argument that a net improvement has been made.

 

 

[joe90]

5 hours ago, OldYeller said:

Also, the front rainwater downpipe currently connects into the foul drainage which I will obviously change to a new soakaway.

Depends if you have “combined drains” which means surface water and sewerage go to the same place (the reason council treatment plants overflow in heavy rain) but yes a soakaway would be much better and frankly should be mandated on some builds/renovation IMO.

[scottishjohn]

14 hours ago, joe90 said:

Depends if you have “combined drains” which means surface water and sewerage go to the same place (the reason council treatment plants overflow in heavy rain) but yes a soakaway would be much better and frankly should be mandated on some builds/renovation IMO.

I do not think that will work as he is going for a demoliish and rebuild 

 to be honest  to me house looks too good to flatten anyway -- but everyone to their own 

they will want everything to comply to latest building spec 

which means foul and surface will need to be separate

and arguing about minor things at this stage is a good recipe for long  delays 

 If I were planning I would not be allowing anything but new spec ,as that what you are wanting --a new house + that includes drainage systems

good luck with your argument -hope it does not upset them too much and your plans go to the bottom of the pile because of it

Edited July 16, 2021 by scottishjohn

[joe90]

3 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

I do not think that will work as he is going for a demoliish and rebuild 

i worded my reply badly, I meant that if his drains are currently combined that would be why rain water was directed at mains drains. I just looked it up and combined drains are still allowed if no alternative Is available (towns/cities/small plots I guess).