SHROPSHIRE COUNCIL PLANNING FAILURES 2008-2010
I'll go back to 2008 when Shropshire Mini Mix proposed expanding the Industrial Estate. The application was rubber stamped without any drainage information being supplied, drainage being dealt with by condition. The expansion was to the boundary to the west and north, with the north-east section of woodland being left i.e. the area closest to our land.
The areas subject to the planning application are outlined in black. The area filled in in green covers the northern expanded area and the existing yard area which was free draining and had no drainage provision.
The area the drainage plan covered that was submitted by SMC and accepted by the Council was solely for the south west corner, the part they occupied. We never got to see this plan, only the Forestry Commission was consulted, and no-one noticed the plan only covered half of the area covered by the planning application and not the most difficult area to drain, which is the north side.
There should be a soakaway running all along the perimeter of SMC's land with excess water draining to the ditch. This would be a grassy area with gully grids spaced out along the length of the soakaway. There was no evidence it was ever put in. There are no visible gullies anywhere around the perimeter and as of 2011 no visible sign of an outlet pipe.
In August 2011 I contacted Planning Enforcement about non-implementation of the scheme, but it's clear that the Council seemingly had no interest in getting this Condition complied with. According to the Ombudsman (2012) '...no action was taken by the Council to investigate whether the drainage system detailed in the Mouchel report had been installed'.
We pushed the Council on this because to comply with this condition the outlet pipe would have to be dug out. It was obvious by this stage that no-one was going to voluntarily do anything to deal with the flooding except divert it onto surrounding land.
The northern area left without drainage was not just the former woodland, but also the infilled area which had always been free draining.
By failing to even notice that the northern area was not included in the report , the Council had accepted a Discharge of Condition which left a whopping 9,000 sq.m of industrial estate, just under a hectare, with no drainage provision, a pretty major cock-up when the only means of drainage was the ditch network to the south of the Industrial Estate and all land between was owned by different companies.
It left the Forestry woodland to the north and our land to the east highly vulnerable because the industrial estate was by this time six feet higher than our land. Only the small area of woodland to the west of us provided a buffer zone, and this was the area Darwin Group decided to make into an attenuation pond, which is briefly dealt with in Darwin Group - Ongoing Works to Dump Their Water onto Their Neighbours Regardless of the Consequences'.
DARWIN GROUPS ASSEMBLY BUILDING
In 2010 Darwin Group applied to build a 900 sq.m. building next to their office. They had planning consent for a 373 sq.m. building which was to be drained to soakaway which hadn't been built and the Council deemed that a building over twice this size did not require a separate planning consent, varying the condition was sufficient.
This is Darwin Groups statement about the drainage:-
So according to Darwin Group they had removed tarmac from the yard area. There was tarmac in this area but it was broken tarmac mixed with clay, bricks etc to form a free draining surface, exactly the same as my orchard area.
The statement says that 'We have actually decreased the surface area that is discharged into this existing system'. Absolute rubbish as none of the area ever drained into the drainage system.
This shows where the drainage system was and where the new building was to go.
They then say they have implemented the system designed by Mouchels, which was a system of catchpits around the perimeter of SMC's land to the south-west to control the flow of water to the ditch network. As I have stated above the system did not cover Darwin Groups land to the North and no system could be installed there to join up with SMC's land anyway.
My submission is not available on the Planning Register, but this is what I told the Planning Department. Bear in mind that the pond had been built and pipework had been put in it:-
This is the drainage plan that the Planning Officer states 'has been provided'.
So you have new pipework going to a gully which is seemingly connected to nothing. No details are provided as to where this pipework goes, its size, its ability to cope with water from this building. Would anyone call this a drainage plan?
The planning officer, when rubber stamping this application, made a mistake, a bad one, but Darwin Group have a track record of providing false information to the Planning Department, which I now know well because they continue to do this in every application.
So you now had the same drainage system with no outlet for water entering the pipework but with the addition of water running at speed from 900 sq.m. of sloping roof space.
Just after this retrospective planning consent In 2010 we had the application from Darwin Group for the amenity pond, which was then correctly called an attenuation pond after the Council were provided with evidence by me of the pipework which had been installed in it from the existing, failed, drains.
This was accompanied by a planning application for a large storage building to be drained into the attenuation pond. The Council were again told that the drainage system wasn't working and provided with photographs showing the illegal discharge of water onto Forestry land.
My pdf has been removed from the planning register so I will quote the relevant passage regarding the drainage system. In explanation of the first sentence a soakaway was included leading from the pond to Darwin Groups land, but this soakaway would not have worked until our land was completely saturated because the pipework was to be installed too high within the pond area.
'This picture was taken yesterday, clearly showing how dirty yard water is being drained straight into the Forestry woodland.
I'll go back to 2008 when Shropshire Mini Mix proposed expanding the Industrial Estate. The application was rubber stamped without any drainage information being supplied, drainage being dealt with by condition. The expansion was to the boundary to the west and north, with the north-east section of woodland being left i.e. the area closest to our land.
The areas subject to the planning application are outlined in black. The area filled in in green covers the northern expanded area and the existing yard area which was free draining and had no drainage provision.
The area the drainage plan covered that was submitted by SMC and accepted by the Council was solely for the south west corner, the part they occupied. We never got to see this plan, only the Forestry Commission was consulted, and no-one noticed the plan only covered half of the area covered by the planning application and not the most difficult area to drain, which is the north side.
There should be a soakaway running all along the perimeter of SMC's land with excess water draining to the ditch. This would be a grassy area with gully grids spaced out along the length of the soakaway. There was no evidence it was ever put in. There are no visible gullies anywhere around the perimeter and as of 2011 no visible sign of an outlet pipe.
In August 2011 I contacted Planning Enforcement about non-implementation of the scheme, but it's clear that the Council seemingly had no interest in getting this Condition complied with. According to the Ombudsman (2012) '...no action was taken by the Council to investigate whether the drainage system detailed in the Mouchel report had been installed'.
We pushed the Council on this because to comply with this condition the outlet pipe would have to be dug out. It was obvious by this stage that no-one was going to voluntarily do anything to deal with the flooding except divert it onto surrounding land.
The northern area left without drainage was not just the former woodland, but also the infilled area which had always been free draining.
By failing to even notice that the northern area was not included in the report , the Council had accepted a Discharge of Condition which left a whopping 9,000 sq.m of industrial estate, just under a hectare, with no drainage provision, a pretty major cock-up when the only means of drainage was the ditch network to the south of the Industrial Estate and all land between was owned by different companies.
It left the Forestry woodland to the north and our land to the east highly vulnerable because the industrial estate was by this time six feet higher than our land. Only the small area of woodland to the west of us provided a buffer zone, and this was the area Darwin Group decided to make into an attenuation pond, which is briefly dealt with in Darwin Group - Ongoing Works to Dump Their Water onto Their Neighbours Regardless of the Consequences'.
DARWIN GROUPS ASSEMBLY BUILDING
In 2010 Darwin Group applied to build a 900 sq.m. building next to their office. They had planning consent for a 373 sq.m. building which was to be drained to soakaway which hadn't been built and the Council deemed that a building over twice this size did not require a separate planning consent, varying the condition was sufficient.
This is Darwin Groups statement about the drainage:-
So according to Darwin Group they had removed tarmac from the yard area. There was tarmac in this area but it was broken tarmac mixed with clay, bricks etc to form a free draining surface, exactly the same as my orchard area.
The statement says that 'We have actually decreased the surface area that is discharged into this existing system'. Absolute rubbish as none of the area ever drained into the drainage system.
This shows where the drainage system was and where the new building was to go.
They then say they have implemented the system designed by Mouchels, which was a system of catchpits around the perimeter of SMC's land to the south-west to control the flow of water to the ditch network. As I have stated above the system did not cover Darwin Groups land to the North and no system could be installed there to join up with SMC's land anyway.
My submission is not available on the Planning Register, but this is what I told the Planning Department. Bear in mind that the pond had been built and pipework had been put in it:-
'As stated above we
believe the existing office drainage has been re-routed from the
existing system, which drains into the Forestry woodland at the far
side of the yard, into this pond. The existing system was designed
to take water away from the bungalows, draining into the Forestry
ditch south of the yard and from there to the River Roden
This drainage system
worked well for 50 years, but has not drained the yard since the
beginning of 2008. Its failure has been caused by a number of factors
including a blockage the far side of the Forestry Commission wood; a
tree falling across the ditch directly by the outlet pipe of the
yard, leading to silting up of the ditch; and infilling of the yard
over the outlet pipe - a matter all companies in this yard have been
informed about and failed to take any action on. There is no reason
this new building could not use this existing system, which puts no
properties at risk. All that is needed to restore this system is an
excavator, a chainsaw, and the occupants of this yard sorting it out
between them'.
The officer passed the application and bizarrely states that the drainage system was installed in 2008. So you have a planning officer who is clearly confused about the drainage situation and doesn't understand that the Mouchels system not only doesn't apply to this land, but only applied to the perimeter of the land anyway. The drainage system was installed in 1975 and consisted of one six inch pipe which now had to cope with runoff from almost 2,000 sq.m. of roof space on Darwin Groups land alone. 
So you have new pipework going to a gully which is seemingly connected to nothing. No details are provided as to where this pipework goes, its size, its ability to cope with water from this building. Would anyone call this a drainage plan?
The planning officer, when rubber stamping this application, made a mistake, a bad one, but Darwin Group have a track record of providing false information to the Planning Department, which I now know well because they continue to do this in every application.
So you now had the same drainage system with no outlet for water entering the pipework but with the addition of water running at speed from 900 sq.m. of sloping roof space.
Just after this retrospective planning consent In 2010 we had the application from Darwin Group for the amenity pond, which was then correctly called an attenuation pond after the Council were provided with evidence by me of the pipework which had been installed in it from the existing, failed, drains.
This was accompanied by a planning application for a large storage building to be drained into the attenuation pond. The Council were again told that the drainage system wasn't working and provided with photographs showing the illegal discharge of water onto Forestry land.
My pdf has been removed from the planning register so I will quote the relevant passage regarding the drainage system. In explanation of the first sentence a soakaway was included leading from the pond to Darwin Groups land, but this soakaway would not have worked until our land was completely saturated because the pipework was to be installed too high within the pond area.
'In addition if this
soakaway is to be connected into the existing drainage system the
Council should see this system for itself, and this is the best I can
do.
'This picture was taken yesterday, clearly showing how dirty yard water is being drained straight into the Forestry woodland.
This second photograph
was taken nine months ago.
If the Council allows
water to be channelled into the lagoon it will be sanctioning the
illegal waterlogging and flooding of our land. If the Council
instead states water must enter the existing system the water will
illegally flood the Forestry woodland through pipework which has been
altered.
Clearly, I state again,
the Council has an obligation to assess this site before making any
decisions'.
This application was, along with the application for the attenuation pond, withdrawn in 2012 as mentioned in 'Darwin Group - Ongoing Works to Dump Their Water onto Their Neighbours Regardless of the Consequences'.
The Council has never assessed the drainage system for this site, and whereas it's a grey area as to how much responsibility the Council should shoulder up to 2012 for the flooding to neighbouring land, there is no doubt after 2013 that impartiality had gone out of the window.
This application was, along with the application for the attenuation pond, withdrawn in 2012 as mentioned in 'Darwin Group - Ongoing Works to Dump Their Water onto Their Neighbours Regardless of the Consequences'.
The Council has never assessed the drainage system for this site, and whereas it's a grey area as to how much responsibility the Council should shoulder up to 2012 for the flooding to neighbouring land, there is no doubt after 2013 that impartiality had gone out of the window.
Comments