Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 10, 2018

The Lathom Solar Farm Done Deal

“It seems the solar application at Lathom was a “done deal” from the start…no matter how many objections…a Labour councilor said it was 99% going through…the Planning committee meeting was a fiasco…two Labour councilors spoke and got their facts completely wrong…they should all hang their heads in shame” all in a letter from Historical Lathom Residents Group.

“What a complete stitch-up between West Lancs Council, the Labour councilors and now the ex-Mayor of West Lancs, approving the solar application at Lathom”.

We’ve been here before, on many occasions. The Local Plan stitch up, Aughton Parrs Lane, Burscough Yew Tree Farm, Halsall, you name a locality and there is no localism at all. Big national developers, huge housing estates with no additional worthwhile infrastructure, and the certainty of flooding that you can see all around you today after the overnight thunderstorms.

In the case papers the WLBC Director of Development and Regeneration wrote about some principles. Of employment land he wrote “The Northern Array is located on land designated as an ‘other significant employment site’. Policy EC1(b)(iii) states that only B1 development will be allowed on the site. The proposed solar array does not fall into this category of development, however, the impact of climate change is acknowledged throughout the Local Plan and according to the supporting information submitted with the application direct benefits would be experienced by the business through the reduction in energy cost associated with the solar development. Therefore, whilst the development would not strictly accord with Policy EC1, I am satisfied that it would be in accordance with one of the main themes of the Development Plan, to promote sustainable development”.

Of the Green Belt he wrote “The proposed Southern Array would be located within land designated as Green Belt. Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF set out the forms of development deemed not inappropriate in the Green Belt. The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development set out. Moreover, paragraph 91 of the NPPF states that when located within the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. On that basis the proposal would be an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 clarifies that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”. The proposed solar farm is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, resulting in a reduction in openness and encroachment into the countryside and is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. This harm must be weighed against the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant.

And then along came the “very special circumstances” that you would expect to see, most of which is bullshit. “It is important that Green Belt consideration should assess, in a balanced way, the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant. The NPPF confirms that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. There are no defined criteria for assessing what constitutes very special circumstances and each case must be judged on its own merits”.

But as sure as night follows day criteria appeared. “The proposed solar farm and creation of renewable energy would have a direct benefit to the NSG Technical Centre , which is a significant employer in the Borough, by bringing economic benefits to NSG by reducing their overall energy cost and in addition to this, allowing them to showcase their work to visitors of the site. Economically, the creation of the solar farm would also assist rural diversification and would provide a mixed use of the land functioning for agricultural purposes, and for the production of renewable energy”. And therein lies the mound of bullshit…economic benefits to NSG …which is a significant employer in the Borough…showcasing their work…these are so special as to convince some Labour planning councillors to grant permission.

The Labour councillors have set a precedent for any other future applicant for solar farms in West Lancashire. As the Parrs Lane Public Inquiry result is already quoted in case law, so now will Lathom LightsourceBP. Perhaps the lack of respect for consideration of the War Horses and of the Skelmersdale Veterans whose petition of 400 names received short shrift will shame West Lancashire Labour? Probably not.

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 10, 2018

Tory County Hits Disabled Travel Card Holders

As expected, the Lancashire County Council’s cabinet has agreed to increase the charge for people with a disabled NoWcard to travel at peak times on weekday mornings from 50p to £1. The mandatory national concessionary travel scheme allows holders of a disabled persons pass  to travel for free between 9.30am and 11.00pm Monday to Friday, and all day at weekends and bank holidays.

Councils which operate the scheme locally have discretion to offer further concessions outside these times. Lancashire County Council’s NoWcard scheme allows holders of a disabled person’s pass to travel at a 50p flat fare on journeys on local buses, which begin before 9.30am on Mondays to Fridays. There has been no increase of the 50p charge for over 10 years. Further work will now be carried out with partner councils and bus operators to introduce the increased change over the coming months.

The cabinet received a report on the outcome of public consultation which received 179 responses, with 53% of respondents saying they have a current disabled person’s NoWcard. Of these, 29% said they had used their card to travel before 9.30am on weekdays on all or most weekdays in the last year, with 16% saying they had used their card a few times a week. 49% of respondents disagreed with the proposal, and 42% agreed with it.

County Councillor Keith Iddon, cabinet member for highways and transport, states “Like many councils, we are facing an extremely challenging financial position, with a forecasted funding gap of £144m in 2021/22. We’re committed to providing the best services we can, particularly to the most vulnerable in our communities, which is why we offer a concession to disabled NoWcard holders to travel outside the times mandated by the national scheme. Increasing the charge to travel before 9.30am on weekdays from 50p to £1 will still offer a concession while helping us to reduce the pressure on the budget.”

The NoWcard scheme is operated in partnership with Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool councils but the change will only affect holders of Lancashire County Council issued disabled NoWcard passes at the current time.

This is more Tory party history repeating itself as we here in West Lancashire, elderly and disabled residents, were victimised by the removal of the concessionary travel that led to social isolation all over West Lancashire. LCC refers to ten years without increase, but “we are facing an extremely challenging financial position” that, strangely enough has no effect on all the allowances LCC elected members receive. 

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 9, 2018

West Lancashire Community Leisure Limited Annual Report

West Lancashire Community Leisure Limited (WLCLL), established to provide recreation facilities to, and for the benefit of, the inhabitants and visitors to West Lancashire, has published its latest “Report of the Trustees and Audited Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 December 2017”, its second year as a Registered Charity. It has a financial “reserves policy” by virtue of its partnership agreement with Serco Leisure Operating Ltd (SLOL) that guarantees protection from any losses derived from the trading activities of its centres.

It operates 5 leisure facilities across the region, including two swimming pools, two dry sites, and a golf course. It employs 120 staff, over 90% of whom live locally. It claims to have circa 1,000,000 visits each year with 6,000 members. Nye Bevan gym has 1,500 members, Burscough gym has circa 1,000 members. The Park Pool is down by 300 to 1,700 members. Swimming lessons attract over 2,600 learners, with growth of 8% per year for the last five years. All of which might seem impressive. But then we come to the Beacon Park Golf Course, of which it might be assumed the least said the better, because the Trust provides no membership, or use of it, statistics.

“Our facilities at Beacon Park Golf Course have been utilized to celebrate events such as Birthdays and Christenings . This has not only encouraged the local community to observe at first hand the recent improvements made at this site but has also helped to generate much needed revenue, which has been re-invested to further improve and promote our services”.

And “The golf course at Beacon Park has made significant strides in quality which has received some positive member feedback, however there are still a number of challenging issues that the board must resolve in respect of this facility . Nevertheless, the Board are confident that these issues will be overcome and there is cause to be cautiously optimistic for the future. The Beacon now attracts regular bookings for special events and functions and, through the hard work and dedication of the on-site team we hope the Beacon will continue to enhance its reputation in the community as a venue of high quality and good value”.

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 9, 2018

Aughton Parish Council Short Meeting

A Short Meeting Of The Aughton Parish Council  Will Be Held On Monday, 13 August 2018, At Aughton Village Hall Annexe, Commencing At 7.30pm For Planning, Parish Finance And Urgent Matters Only. Some hopes of that, with 16 planning cases to consider!


1. APOLOGIES – to receive and approve.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – if a member requires advice on Declarations of Interest, he/she should contact the Clerk in advance of the meeting.

3. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 9 JULY 2018, copies circulated prior to meeting – to receive and approve.

4. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES (for information only).

5. VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE OF PARISH COUNCILLOR: to complete the final stage of the co-option process.

6. PLANNING: a) Weekly List Items – to receive and consider – view plans on b) Appeals/Planning Control c) Planning Committee – to receive report on Meeting held 26 July 2018 d) Notification of New Addresses: Site Location – land at the junction with Long Lane/Aughton Park Drive – consultation.


8. LANCASHIRE ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL COUNCILS: a) Policing Survey launched on-line Friday 27 July-Monday 10 September by the Lancashire Police & Crime Commissioner ‘Confidence in policing and local priorities’ questionnaire (details circulated prior to meeting) – view

9. ACCOUNTS – to receive and approve.

10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING – to confirm.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME – at a convenient time, normally shortly after the opening of the meeting, the Chairman will adjourn the meeting (for a short interval at his discretion) to allow any members of the public who are residents in Aughton (or such other persons in the Chairman’s absolute discretion) to address meeting.

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 9, 2018

Fundraising Fun At Mere Brook Ormskirk Dementia Centre

People are invited to an afternoon of summer fun at Mere Brook Day Centre in Ormskirk, to raise money to fund activities for people who use the service. The Summer Fair will be held on Friday 17 August, between 2pm and 3.30pm, at the centre based at the Brookside Retirement Village on Aughton Street 

A garden party with afternoon tea and coffee, a cake sale and a raffle are some of the activities people can enjoy on the day. Admission is free with tea, cakes and coffee costing £1. Sunflowers grown at the centre’s garden by people who use the service will cost £1.50 each.

Local band The Clarks will provide a steel band and sing-along piano music on the day. Mere Brook, which is run by Lancashire County Council, offers a range of services to support people with dementia. Up to 15 people can use the service each day.

Sarah Willmoth, day centre officer for Mere Brook, said “We offer lots of services to support people with dementia provided by fully trained staff. People can get support with anything from showering and leisure activities, to going shopping in town. Visitors also enjoy going out for day trips such as meals out, visits to shops and garden centres and we’re hoping to raise money for these activities at the Summer Fair. We want as many people as possible to come down and show their support.

“Our visitors all tell us what a difference the centre makes to their lives. It is also vital for families and carers who can take a break from their caring role, while their loved ones use our service”.

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 7, 2018

Increased Costs Of Disability To Pay For Modern iPhones For LCC Members

A report in the Lancashire Telegraph  claims that Senior LCC Tory councillors will next week be recommended to authorise spending up to £38,000 on top-of-the-range iPhones for their individual use while doubling early morning bus fares for disabled passengers. Increasing the cost of concessionary travel for disabled NoWcard holders before 9.30am from 50p to £1 per journey will save Lancashire County Council £43,000 this year and £44,000 in the following 12 months.

The two items will be considered consecutively by the authority’s ruling cabinet on Thursday. Cllr John Fillis  deputy leader of the county Labour group said “At a time when the authority is looking for savings I find it astounding the Cabinet is even considering spending £38,000 on new mobile phones for members. They should drop the proposal and transfer the money to keeping the 50p fare for disabled bus users. Councillors could follow my example and use a basic mobile phone as we all have laptops paid for from the council allowances”.

Conservative deputy leader of the authority Cllr Albert Atkinson said “The current mobile county council phones, bought under Labour, are rubbish. We need new ones so councillors can be contacted. I use my own. The two sums of money come from completely different budgets. The money cannot be transferred from one to the other. The cost of disabled travel is a recurring cost each year, not a one-off like new phones from the councillors’ technology budget”. Disabled readers might assume that Tory policy is to tell them to bugger off?

The cabinet will consider offering a replacement for councillors’ existing Android Vodafone Prime devices worth £100 each. The proposal, recommended by officers, would allow the county council’s 84 members the option of keeping the current handset, choosing an iPhone7 costing £455, opting for a basic Mobiwire Aponi phone and text-only device at £30, or using their own phone with Airwatch access to county council emails and intranet installed. Councillors choosing the latter would receive an extra £5 per month allowance.

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 7, 2018

Westley “Ground Breaking Partnership With DCT Leisure”

“Members may wish to acknowledge the success to date of the ground breaking partnership with DCT Leisure in managing the Beacon Park Golf Course for the Golf Course, Driving Range, Pro Shop and Beacon Centre Catering over the last 5 years. And “The Council now has a more favourable financial situation, with a guaranteed income from the course. DCT Leisure Limited has benefited both Council and local community, justifying the initial decision to engage them. Relevant Portfolio Holder: Councillor David Westley” to Cabinet: 15th March 2005.

As we all know, “ground breaking” is now synonymous with the ruination of the driving range by excessive, unlimited, landfill allowed by what DCT Leisure Ltd introduced and what Serco Leisure Operating Ltd (SLOL) continued. That much of it was illegal, by breach of planning conditions, is a matter of fact as witnessed by the Breach of Notice served on SLOL in May by WLBC.

And, since DCT Leisure Ltd eventually went into liquidation, stating in March 2012 its inability by reason of its liabilities to continue its business, after confirming in its 2009 accounts it had negative assets of £69,508, ie debts that included unsecured creditors HMRC VAT, Former Employee Tribunal Claim, Employee Redundancy, and Trade and Expense, how long had WLBC been monitoring it by due diligence? Short answer, never! So much for the “…guaranteed income from the course”, more like a banana republic deal?

WLBC states “Finance, Contracts and Legal Matters. Financial Management. The management of the Council’s financial affairs will be conducted in accordance with the Financial Procedure Rules set out in the Constitution. Contracts. Every contract made by the Council will comply with the Contracts Procedure Rules set out in the Constitution”.

 One of the most significant transformations in public sector service delivery in recent years has been the ever increasing tendency for local authorities to outsource. The latest Arvato UK Outsourcing Index found that the value of outsourced contracts signed by councils in the first half of this year increased by 84%, despite public sector spending decreasing overall. Moreover, according to research from Zurich Municipal, local authorities spend around a quarter of their annual expenditure – a total of around £45bn – on procuring goods and services from third parties.

If managed properly, outsourcing can reap rewards for councils and help deliver genuine business transformation with considerable benefits for services. But if outsourcing goes wrong, the impact on public services and the council’s reputation could be significant.

Councils cannot shift the blame for failure. As well as the clear financial consequences for councils who fail to achieve value for money from a contract, there are also significant reputational implications if essential public services suffer as a result of outsourcing. In the vast majority of cases where outsourcing fails, the public will view the council – and not the third party supplier – as responsible for poor service delivery. Public opinion aside, councils can also find themselves in hot water if they fail to understand their legal liabilities around outsourced contracts. In particular, local authorities need to be aware of non-delegable duty of care. In certain circumstances, an organisation will remain ultimately responsible for the safe delivery of a service even if that service has been outsourced to a third party.

Preparation and planning essential. But how can councils manage a situation where a provider fails to deliver on the agreed contact? The answer is preparation and planning from the start. Sound contract management is essential to protecting a council. This requires putting in place robust contractual agreements with any suppliers on key areas, such as the council’s expectations of a third party, who holds liability when the outsourced service fails, and which party handles public complaints. High quality contract management is particularly vital when that contract involves performing functions relating to young people or vulnerable adults.

Before any contract is signed, it is vital that councils carry out due diligence on suppliers’ financial viability and resilience. Our New World of Risk: Change for Good report found more than half (54%) of councils are concerned about the financial stability of organisations in their supply chain. Councils should also require proof that suppliers have adequate insurance to protect the authority in the event of a claim.

In addition, Local authorities should also ask themselves how the delivery of services will be monitored once signed. This is vital to achieve value for money and to ensure that services are being delivered to a pre-agreed standard. Is there a clear division of responsibilities and liabilities outlined in the contract? Are there a set of well-defined and realistic KPIs in place?

Effective procurement and contract management is no simple task, so councils should ensure they have staff in place with the right skill sets to keep their processes running smoothly. Many insurers offer expert assistance and training to staff in this complex and vital area. Following assessments of their suppliers, councils should consider whether they could quickly source an alternative provider or bring the service back in-house at short notice in the event of supplier failure.

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 7, 2018

Bordering On Madness?

Derek Bennett  wrote “The thing that first drew me to being opposed to our membership of the EU in 1991 was the realisation my elected Government was not in control of our country, that authority had passed to an offshore, unelected and unaccountable body.

“My awakening came through a letter written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the terrible recession of the early 1990’s. He had increased VAT from 15% to 17.5%, which for the small family business I ran, was a disaster. I asked him to consider reducing VAT to around 8% to 10% to give struggling businesses like ours a fighting chance during those tough economic times. The reply shocked me.

“In the correspondence to me the Chancellor’s office stated that as we were members of the EU the Chancellor was not allowed to reduce VAT below 15%. This admission of a loss of power, from the office of an important member of Government, elected into alleged power by the British electorate, came like an electric shock, in that moment, reading those words, I realised we no longer lived in a free democratic nation. My long journey for democracy and sovereignty started there.

“This now brings me to today, as that journey is coming towards what I hope to be a successful close. Seeing what is now happening with the current negotiations and how the EU is determined to be as obstructive as possible, the situation regarding the border between the North & South of Ireland is a classic case of all that is wrong with the EU, so much so it screams to me and yet others can’t, or refuse to see it.

“On the 29th March 2019 Britain will leave the EU and return to full democracy and self determination, whereas Eire will remain trapped in the clutches of the EU, what better example of the difference between a free, self determining nation and a captive EU nation can there be. Britain will be free to make mutually beneficial agreements with other nations while Eire will not.

“We all know there should be no obstacle between old friends who have had close and happily mutual arrangements with each other for decades, but Eire is trapped by EU dogma and intransigence. Were Eire to be a free from the EU’s clutches our two nations could quickly decide a happy and workable agreement on the border, from 2019 without outside interference. The UK will be in that blissful position but Eire will not, the resulting shambles will once again be down to the EU creating problems where none should exist. Maybe this will make the Government of Southern Ireland realise the advantages of leaving the EU and join us in our return to freedom just as they did in 1973 when we joined the then Common Market together, to remain in the EU is bordering on madness”.

Mr Bennett went on to write “When Peter Mandelson was in the Labour Government and later a highly paid EU Commissioner, I was struggling running the small family business my late father had started in 1946. We just about survived the recession of the early nineties caused by the folly of the UK joining the EU exchange rate mechanism, which bankrupted a large number of small businesses at the cost of thousands of jobs.

“Later we had to comply with increased EU inspired bureaucracy, making it harder to make a profit. In the end I gave up, as it seemed the EU and our own Government were against those of us running small businesses. They talked about helping, but the EU rules on just about everything made life impossible. It was no wonder I joined the Referendum Party when the late Sir James Goldsmith came along and was selected as a candidate. I was a ‘Leave’ voter in waiting for twenty five years due to seeing, at first-hand, the damage EU membership does to small businesses, who ironically, collectively employ far more people in the UK than the large multinationals to whom the EU panders.

“I am now retired, living on a state pension and my small personal pension, which is small due to struggling to keep a business I was immensely proud of afloat. Like most owners of small businesses, I sacrificed a lot to keep our business going and to save the jobs of those we employed.

“On the other hand, Lord Mandelson has a very nice fat EU pension, paid for by the taxpayers of this country, and lives in style with his wealthy friends around the world. No wonder he voted ‘Remain’. He now has the audacity to call those of us who voted ‘Leave’ “Brextremists” as well as other ludicrous assertions. According to him, those of us who have given our lives working, worrying and struggling to cope with EU bureaucracy, are ‘extremists’ who have the temerity to threaten his grand EU created lifestyle”.

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 6, 2018

State Of The Green Belt 2018

CPRE’s annual State of the Green Belt report shows that there are currently 460,000 homes being planned to be built on land that will soon be released from the Green Belt.

The report also demonstrates that building on the Green Belt is not solving the affordable housing crisis, and will not do so. Last year 72% of homes built on greenfield land within the Green Belt were unaffordable by the government’s definition. Of the 460,000 homes that are planned to be built on land that will be released from the Green Belt, the percentage of unaffordable homes will increase to 78%.

Local authorities with Green Belt land have enough brownfield land for over 720,000 homes, the report finds, much of which is in areas with a high need for housing and existing infrastructure. In addition to a push for a genuine ‘brownfield first’ approach to development, CPRE are also calling on the government to – retain its commitment to protect the Green Belt by establishing long-term boundaries– halt speculative development in the Green Belt– develop clear guidance for local authorities on housing requirements to protect designated land– support the creation of new Green Belts where local authorities have established a clear need for them.

Looking at eight rural councils over one year, analysis shows that half the affordable homes that councils were required to build were lost when viability assessments were used, demonstrating that the housing crisis is not just confined to our cities, but is having a serious impact in the countryside as well. Developers use ‘viability assessments’ to argue that building affordable homes could reduce their profits to below around 20%, which gives them the right to cut their affordable housing quota. It means developers are over-paying for land and recouping the costs by squeezing the affordable housing commitments, a tactic often used by developers building big housing schemes.

Posted by: westlancashirerecord | August 6, 2018

The Futility Of Protest Against Development And Flood Risk?

A “Political watcher”  writes to the Champion about the Tarleton development masterplan, comparing it with events in Burscough and concluding that the subject of house building in copious quantities is an entirely political one and “regardless of the political party in majority, rest assured the end result will be the same…save yourselves a world of grief and just accept it”.

As it happens, another contentious application in Burscough relates to planning application 2018/0464/FUL, Land to the West of Red Cat Lane Burscough Lancashire; Residential development (38 units). Planning Statement Jones Homes (Lancashire) Ltd, Carol Mawdsley, Susan Houghton and Gillian Bentham. Full Planning Application for Residential Development (38 Dwellings).

Of particular interest in this case, as occurs so often in Burscough, is the matter of reducing flood risk, and seemingly the site is located in flood zone 1 (low risk of flooding) and the submitted drainage strategy “demonstrates” that the site can be suitably drained without impacting on the surrounding community. But read on!

Comments made by Bursough resident and anti-flood campaigner Gavin Rattray brought attention to a 2010 report sponsored by WLBC that went missing for approximately six years and therefore conveniently didn’t inform the local plan’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) that including Red Cat Lane as a plan B site was a bad idea because of the downstream drainage.

United Utilities is in the peculiar position where no public body is challenging their appalling declining service. Instead, LCC and WLBC are supporting them by deliberately refusing to collect the evidence of their failures and helping them by actively trying to replace the Burscough Flood Group with another group. And in the Flood Risk Assessment Report  3.2.4 United Utilities. The public drainage operator, United Utilities, confirmed that foul water can be drained into the combined sewerage network at an unrestricted rate and that there are no known capacity issues in the area. They encouraged taking site surface waters to soak-away or other infiltration systems. There is no known risk relating to sewerage flooding at the site.

The surface water outflow from the site will be connected to existing watercourses and a highway drainage system which were investigated in the 2010 WLBC Flood Report Burscough, with the following conclusions:

6.2 Crabtree Lane & Red Cat Lane
The field investigation identified a number of immediate remedial actions, these include:
• Removal of roots ingress upstream of manholes Mh RC 3 and Mh RC 4
• Removal of blockage in low level pipe approximately 2 m downstream of Mh RC 2
• Removal of blockages in road gullies along Red Cat Lane.
• Further investigations (walking line of historic culverts, dye testing, CCTV survey’s) are required to verify the information shown for historic culverts.
A hydraulic assessment was undertaken for Crabtree Lane and Red Cat Lane. A number of mitigation options were considered to alleviate flooding the options considered included:
• Replace 336 m of 225 mm drain from the junction of Red Cat Lane to Moss Nook to a point approximately 100 m north of the junction of Cherry Grove / Red Cat Lane (point A)
• Replace 460 m of 300 mm drain from point A to Hills View culvert
• Upsize the existing 225 mm diameter culvert (Hills View culvert) to a 375 mm diameter culvert.

Having looked at the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Report 1118-003-003 provided by the applicant and the SFRA provided by WLBC, Gavin Rattray made the following comment “The FRA report fails to consider the 2010 WLBC Flood Report Burscough and indeed it would appear that the applicant was unaware of this document. Developers and applicants need to consider flood risk to and from the development site, and it is likely to be in their own best interests to do this as early as possible, in particular, to reduce the risk of subsequent, significant additional costs being incurred. The broad approach of assessing, avoiding, managing and mitigating flood risk should be followed. . . .It would be helpful to include any evidence, such as maps and level surveys of the site, flood datasets (e.g. flood levels, depths and/or velocities) and any other relevant data, which can be acquired through consultation with the Environment Agency, the lead local flood authority for the area, or any other relevant flood risk management authority (NPPG).

“As the surface water drainage system was already failing prior to 2010 and proven to be hydraulically inadequate in 2010, it would be necessary to ascertain from WLBC/LCC whether the recommendations of the 2010 report were followed up, and what existing problems remain before making additional connections to this drainage system. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere (NPPF 100)”.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »