From: Bruce Weir [bruce.weir@cwproperties.co.uk]
Sent: 16 December 2011 15:56
To: sandra.sheldrick@cwproperties.co.uk
Subject: SEPA Response to Planning Applications

Attachments: sepa2ndresponse.pdf; sepangresponse.pdf

 

From: Yusuf Kaya 
Sent: 12 December 2011 16:00
To: 'Marc.Becker@sepa.org.uk'
Subject: SEPA Response to Planning Applications

 

Dear Marc,

 

I hope you are well. 

 

I would like to share with you a concern which I have with respect to SEPA response to planning applications. I hope that you don’t mind me contacting you about this. 

 

Two of the sites which we are currently involved with are similar in nature, but both has attracted different response from SEPA (copies of SEPA letters attached).

 

Both are brownfield sites, in urban areas and derelict. Both are not Development Plan led.

 

For the one in Dunoon, SEPA indicated that they recognise that like-for-like compensatory storage will not be provided, but this is acceptable. For the site in Glasgow, like-for-like compensatory storage is required by SEPA. As neither site is Development Plan led, I would have thought that both would have the same requirements. Our interpretation of SPP is that like-for-like compensatory storage should be provided so that flooding risk to others are not increased due to the development, otherwise it would be contradicting the principles of SPP. This is the advice we have been given to our clients. With SEPA applying different rules for different sites/clients, we find it difficult to argue that like-for-like compensatory storage should be provided. Clients do refer to other sites where rules have been relaxed and ask us to do likewise. 

 

One other point of concern is that in some cases a brownfield site is taken as being the site as a whole; in others part of the site which can considered greenfield are separated (for example garden of a building). This makes it very subjective as part of a brownfield site which had a building on it previously but now has grass may be regarded as either.  Should the footprint of the new development be limited to the footprint of the previous development, even though at present there is no sign of the previous development?  So, what do we do? If you start separating brownfield and greenfield parts of a site, is there a cut-off point? This can be very difficult to apply in practice. 

 

Any thoughts on the above two points would be much appreciated. 

 

Regards,

 

Yusuf 

 

This message may contain privileged or confidential information which is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify the originator immediately. Recipients may not forward, disclose or copy this message to any third party without the proper consent of Kaya Consulting Limited. Kaya Consulting Limited does not accept liability for direct, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by others.