Environment Agency

[Smiffy]

Look's like the EA don't like the plans...

Where's Sussex By The Sea??..

What's your take on this?, What happens now?..

Some interesting letters..

 

[Draft Shrimper]

I'm in a good position to advise on this since i work for an engineering consultancy (WSP) and prepare Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) all day long and have much experience of dealing with the EA.

I must admit i am not surprised that the EA have objected since when i read the FRA that was prepared i was quite concerned at the lack of detail on the drainage proposals.

I will refrain from getting into a rant about the EA in general and how then can be very anul, un pragmatic and damm right obstructive at times but i think they have good reason to object in this case.  

There's nothing wrong the drainage strategy in principle but since this is a detailed application more details should have been supplied. They are well within their rights to request this information in this case. I shouldn't really criticise the consultants who prepared this FRA (it depends on their commission and what they said they would produce) but it doesn't really cut the mustard IMO.

This objection (on drainage) can be removed if further details are supplied and wouldn't take too long to do. I'm tempted to  offer my services to the club!  

I should state that the EA are only a consultee in the planning process and the Local Authority can overrule them (particularly if they are very supportive of the scheme) but since the EA are the 'technical' approval authority on these matters the Local Authority will normally uphold the objection.

I wouldn’t be overly worried as this is not an unusual objection for the EA to raise and as long as the consultants act quickly to submit the additional details they will have time (they have a statutory 21 days response time limit) to remove before the planners write their reports which is normally about 3 weeks before the committee date.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Quote[/b] (Draft Shrimper @ Dec. 07 2006,13:50)]I'm tempted to  offer my services to the club!  

Please do!

Maybe an email outlining how they could proceed to resolve this query, at least?

 

[sussex by the sea]

Draft Shrimper has pretty much said it all and obviously knows the Environment Agency well judging by the fact he calls them unpragmatic and obstructive !

I don't think this is too much to worry about as in my experience the Environment Agency often object at the start of the planning application process to make sure they get the information they need: more often than not they will subsequently withdraw their objection. Looking at their comments, after the paragraph where they object they then suggest conditions to be imposed if their objection is overcome. I take this to mean that they do feel there is a good chance that they will withdraw their objection since their letter would be rather more curt if they thought there was no possibility of the right information being submitted.

I would be very surprised if either of the Councils recommended refusal of the applications at this stage on the basis of the EA comments. When I have received EA objections to the planning applications I deal with, it tends to mean that the applications are delayed, rather than refused, while the new information is being gathered.

Both the stadium and training pitches applications took a long time to submit as we all know and so I am slightly disappointed that after all the preparation time, insufficient information has been submitted. As I have said before, I think Ron's timetable for the decision on the applications is somewhat optimistic and we may be looking more at Spring for the applications to be determined.

No reason to lose heart yet, therefore, but we may all have to be patient before the permissions are granted.

 

[Draft Shrimper]

Sussex, i agree with your sentiments. I wouldn't be surprised if the Councils recommend to defer the decision based on what i have read of the application documents and now this response from the EA. You've quite rightly mentioned the conditions the EA have recommended and that if they were dead against this development (and they have no reason to be from what i can see) then they would not have stated them at this stage.

In response to space man spiff, i was kind of joking with my comment, however i will mention it to the powers that be within my office as we do have experience of this site. We actually undertook the FRA for this very site for the BNQ and some specialist optical hospital (or something like that but i don't think this was every built).

It is rather frustrating from my point of view as this site is not difficult from a flood risk and drainage perspective and could so easily be dealt with at the first attempt.

To confirm though there is certainly no need to panic as sbts has already said. It may be that planning decisions are put back.