54 Arkwright Road, Sanderstead - Sustainable drainage system (?)
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
On 8 June 2023, the Planning Committee were told that with regard to the sustainable drainage system, what had already been installed as part of this development was " a wholesale breach of planning controls". As of yet however, the public has been provided with NO details of exactly what HAD been installed.
Condition 12 attached to the subsequent decision on planning application 22/00085/CONR states:
"The development shall be carried out and maintained in compliance with the details approved within application ref. 18/02441/DISC, which was approved on 2nd August 2018, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that sustainable methods of drainage are provided on-site to mitigate flood risk." ..."
The details approved under 18/02441/DISC (as shown on drawing B22491-SK01B) include a surface water (SW) drainage system which discharges ALL the rainwater from the development into a 6.5m x 3m x 0.8m deep crated 'soakaway' in the rear garden (or water butts). But evidence made available to the Council since 2021 (and before), indicates that it is in fact very likely that at least some (and probably the majority) of the development's rainwater is instead COMBINED with its wastewater (from toilets, sinks, washing machines etc) before being discharged into the public foul (only) sewer in Arkwright Road. This WOULD be in breach of development plan policies and COULD increase flood risk."
NOTE: The approved drainage drawing WRONGLY shows the public sewer as 'combined' (rainwater + wastewater). There is NO surface water sewer in Arkwright Road.
There have been no obvious works undertaken on site to correct the 'wholesale breach'. Yet on 19 December 2024, residents were informed by the Council's Planning Enforcement & Trees Team Leader (John Penn MSc), that he does "not believe there are any outstanding planning breaches following the grant of planning permission".
Please provide copies of the following information:
(a) anything (including drawings, photographs, CCTV survey records etc) that provides details of the unauthorised SW drainage layout in situ at the time of Ms Townsend's decision on 1 September 2023,
(b) any written agreement by the Council that the SW layout at (a) above can be retained, and/or
(c) if a written agreement such as that described at (b) has not been provided by the Council, how much more time will the applicant be given to comply with Condition 12?
Yours faithfully,
S P Whiteside
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
By law, the authority should normally have responded promptly and by 24 January 2025 at the latest.
If I do not receive the information by 31 January 2025, I will ask the Information Commissioner to intervene.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Whiteside
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
To recap ... on 19 December 2024 the Council's Planning Enforcement & Trees Team Leader (John Penn MSc) told residents that he couldn't see "any outstanding planning breaches", suggesting that he believed the development HAD been carried out "in compliance with the details approved within application ref. 18/02441/DISC" (i.e drawing B22491-SK01B).
More recently however (16 January 2025), Mr Penn has claimed that although the planning enforcement files includes photographs of drainage being installed inJanuary 2020, he has "no way of establishing if all the correct connections were made". Residents are understandably 'confused' ... as well as not a little suspicious.
Mr Penn now claims that "establishing if all the correct connections were made" .... "would have been a matter for the independent Building Control surveyors", by which we assume he means the 'approved inspector' (i.e Stroma Building Control Ltd). But residents are well aware that establishing whether a development is being (or has been) built in accordance with approved PLANNING drawings or in compliance with PLANNING conditions, is NOT a matter for the developer's approved inspector, but for the local planning authority (i.e L B Croydon).
Residents also (very strongly) disagree with Mr Penn's hidden suggestion that there is NOW, "no way" of checking whether drawing B22491-SK01B has been followed with regard to the collection/discharge of the development's surface water. Photographs on Mr Penn's planning enforcement files SHOULD also very clearly show that the approved drawing has most certainly NOT been followed with regard to its waste water.
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
I have now submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office ... to add to the list.
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
The Information Commissioner has now 'asked' the Council to respond to this request by 18 March 2024 (which I hope means 2025).
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
In the absence of a substantive response from the Council, the Information Commissioner has told them that one MUST be provided within 30 calendar days. "Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court."
ICO Case Reference Number: IC-365792-N7X7
Information Team Croydon
Digital Services
Assistant Chief Executive Directorate
Bernard Wetherill House
7th Floor, Zone B
Croydon
CR0 1EA
Contact: Information Team
[email address]
Dear Stephen Whiteside
Request FOI/11406
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Your request has been considered under the provisions of the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004. Please accept our apologies for the delay in
responding to you.
Specifically, you have requested the following information:
Re: 54 Arkwright Road, South Croydon.
“On 8 June 2023, the Planning Committee were told that with regard to the
sustainable drainage system, what had already been installed as part of
this development was " a wholesale breach of planning controls". As of yet
however, the public has been provided with NO details of exactly what HAD
been installed.
Condition 12 attached to the subsequent decision on planning application
22/00085/CONR states:
"The development shall be carried out and maintained in compliance with
the details approved within application ref. 18/02441/DISC, which was
approved on 2nd August 2018, unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that sustainable methods of
drainage are provided on-site to mitigate flood risk." ..."
The details approved under 18/02441/DISC (as shown on drawing
B22491-SK01B) include a surface water (SW) drainage system which
discharges ALL the rainwater from the development into a 6.5m x 3m x 0.8m
deep crated soakaway in the rear garden (or water butts). But evidence
made available to the Council since 2021 (and before), indicates that it
is in fact very likely that at least some (and probably the majority) of
the developments rainwater is instead COMBINED with its wastewater (from
toilets, sinks, washing machines etc) before being discharged into the
public foul (only) sewer in Arkwright Road. This WOULD be in breach of
development plan policies and COULD increase flood risk."
NOTE: The approved drainage drawing WRONGLY shows the public sewer as
combined (rainwater + wastewater). There is NO surface water sewer in
Arkwright Road.
There have been no obvious works undertaken on site to correct the
wholesale breach. Yet on 19 December 2024, residents were informed by the
Councils Planning Enforcement & Trees Team Leader (John Penn MSc), that he
does "not believe there are any outstanding planning breaches following
the grant of planning permission".
Please provide copies of the following information:
(a) anything (including drawings, photographs, CCTV survey records etc)
that provides details of the unauthorised SW drainage layout in situ at
the time of Ms Townsends decision on 1 September 2023,
1. The Council holds plans of the approved surface water drainage,
available online under the following planning application records:
• Decision notice [1]22/00085/CONR includes Condition 12, which requires
compliance with application ref. 18/02441/DISC (available online).
• Application [2]18/02441/DISC includes approved details of drainage.
• Planning Decision [3]17/03916/FUL is available online.
Regulation 6(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations applies
where the requested information is already publicly available and easily
accessible to the applicant in another form or format.
This means that the Council is relieved of the duty to communicate the
requested information to an applicant if there is an existing method by
which the information can be obtained, outside of the operation of the
Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations.
2. The Council holds the attached photographic records of enforcement
site inspections.
3. The Council holds the attached (redacted) written records of
enforcement site inspections.
We have removed names and contact details of individuals from these
records as this would be disclosing personal data to you. The General Data
Protection Regulation 2018, renders such data exempt from disclosure by
virtue of Regulation 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations
2004 (“EIR”) read with the provisions of Regulation 13.
It is important to remember that when information is released under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004, it is considered released to
the wider public. Any such disclosure of personal information would not be
compliant with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations
2018.
(b) any written agreement by the Council that the SW layout at (a) above
can be retained, and/or
1. Decision [4]22/00085/CONR includes the decision notice including
Condition 12 which requires the approved surface drainage to be
carried out and maintained in compliance with the details approved by
condition 12 of planning application ref. 18/02441/DISC.
Regulation 6(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations applies
where the requested information is already publicly available and easily
accessible to the applicant in another form or format.
This means that the Council is relieved of the duty to communicate the
requested information to an applicant if there is an existing method by
which the information can be obtained, outside of the operation of the
Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations.
(c) if a written agreement such as that described at (b) has not been
provided by the Council, how much more time will the applicant be given to
comply with Condition 12?”
1. Condition 12 is a “compliance” condition. The Council has not been
provided with evidence that this condition has been breached.
The Council publishes Access to Information requests and responses on its
online Disclosure Log. (Any request included within this log will be
anonymised appropriately)
To view the Council’s Disclosure Log, please visit our website available
here:
[5]The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act | Croydon Council
(disclosure-log.co.uk)
If you are dissatisfied with the way the council has handled your request
under the Environmental Information Regulations you may ask for an
internal review. This should be submitted to us within 40 working days of
this response. You can do this by outlining the details of your complaint
by:
Email: [6][email address]
Writing: Information Team
London Borough of Croydon
Bernard Weatherill House
3^rd Floor - Zone E
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
Any requests received after the 40 working day time limit will be
considered only at the discretion of the council.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Commissioner for a decision. The
Commissioner can be contacted at:
Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Croydon Council
References
Visible links
1. https://publicaccess3.croydon.gov.uk/onl...
2. https://publicaccess3.croydon.gov.uk/onl...
3. https://publicaccess3.croydon.gov.uk/onl...
4. https://publicaccess3.croydon.gov.uk/onl...
5. https://croydon.disclosure-log.co.uk/
6. mailto:[email%20address]
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Croydon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request '54 Arkwright Road, Sanderstead - Sustainable drainage system (?)'.
The Council’s initial response is incomplete, contradictory and (in part) misinformative.
I REQUESTED - (a) anything (including drawings, photographs, CCTV survey records etc) that provides details of the unauthorised SW drainage layout in situ at the time of Ms Townsend’s decision on 1 September 2023.
For the avoidance of doubt with regard to your item (a) 1, I did NOT request copies of the documents listed.
Your item (a) 2 tells me “The Council holds the attached photographic records of enforcement site inspections”.
Attached file - ‘Soakaway photos 27.1.20.pdf’
As I understand it, these twelve photographs show the installation (and covering) of a group of drainage ‘crates’ in the rear garden. They come as something of a disagreeable surprise, since I was told by the planning enforcement officer (Paul Watson) that on his site visit on 8 January 2020 he noted that a “large soakaway drain …installed to the rear of the plot” was already “partially covered”. Mr Watson added “I am unable to say if the soakaway arrangements would be effective. This does not fall within my remit but you could direct any query to Building Control.” I still believe that that was an abdication of the Council’s legal duty to investigate a reported breach.
It seems from the ‘inspection notes’, that the photographs were actually received by Mr Watson (possibly from owner or developer) on 27 January 2020 and they have (or should have) been sitting on the enforcement file ever since. I find it concerning that I have only now been informed that they exist.
What the photographs appear to show are 18 ‘Polystorm’ units, each 1000x500x400d, arranged in two layers creating a ‘tank’ with an overall water storage volume of 3420 litres (18 x 190l). What the approved design shows is an infiltration tank formed by 78 such crates, again in two layers, with a water storage volume of 14820 litres (78 x 190l).
It is clear from the above, that the Council HAS since January 2020, held evidence that the surface water drainage system in place at the time of Ms Townsend’s decision on 1 September 2023, most likely did NOT (and does not) comply with the details approved under application 18/02441/DISC (i.e. that Condition 12 HAS been breached). There is no evidence available to show otherwise.
Attached file - Rainwater Tank Photos 23.3.21.pdf
There is nothing in your (redacted) written records of enforcement site inspections to suggest that these photographs were taken by Council officers, which is not surprising since it was I who took them!
The photographs were attached to my email to the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team Leader (Robert Snodin) on that date (23 March 2021) and which included the following:
“It was as far back as December 2019 (at least), when I first reported planning breaches taking place at this development site. More reports have followed which have also not been properly investigated, or investigated at all.
I attach two photographs to demonstrate that further breaches are taking place. The first shows a very large pumping 'station' and the second shows a large hole to the front of the building, which is apparently being prepared to take the station. Residents have been told that this vessel is to take 'sewage' from the new building.
There is no such object shown on the approved drawings, certainly not in this location and I would like an explanation. Most importantly I want to know what is happening to all the additional surface water generated by this development, and an assurance that it will all be disposed of via the soakaway in the rear garden, as shown on the approved drawing, B22491-SK01B (attached) as opposed to via the 'main sewer', as shown on the application form (also attached).”
The email was copied to ‘Planning Enforcement’ (and Nicola Townsend), but I note that there is no record of that email in what you have now provided, described as the Council’s written records of enforcement site inspections.
One of the photographs was later used in an article in Inside Croydon. https://insidecroydon.com/2021/11/17/buy...
The fact that these photographs are titled ‘rainwater tank’, SUGGESTS that the Council has in fact (at some point) accepted that the installed ‘sewage station’ also takes (at least) part of surface water generated by this development (i.e. that Condition 12 HAS been breached).
Your item (a)3 tells me that the attached file (1900909NBI 54 Arkwright Road Inspection Redacted.pdf) contains the “(redacted) written records of enforcement site inspections.”
I note that those ‘written records’ end with the following:
“Email received (1-7-24) from planning officer Joe Sales. All conditions 23/04474/DISC are now approved. No further breach and the file can be closed. As the complainant has not contacted the council in the past four years he has not been updated in this case.”
It’s not clear who the ‘complainant’ referred to is/was, but it was surely somewhat ‘inappropriate’ to close the file when it gives no indication of any meaningful enforcement investigation into the drainage issue(s) AND in the knowledge that the Council held direct (and circumstantial) evidence of non-compliance with the approved details … and breach of Condition 12.
I REQUESTED - (b) any written agreement by the Council that the SW layout at (a) above can be retained.
In response, your item 1 merely tells me what I already know and which is quoted the original request of 24 December 2024.
I REQUESTED - (c) if a written agreement such as that described at (b) has not been provided by the Council, how much more time will the applicant be given to comply with Condition 12?”
Your item (c)1 tells me that “Condition 12 is a “compliance” condition. The Council has not been provided with evidence that this condition has been breached.”
I am well aware that Condition 12 is a “compliance” condition. I am also only too well aware that the Council HAS been provided with evidence that this condition may well have been breached, but has apparently done NOTHING to investigate. Hence this request!
Furthermore, by the Council’s own admission (as described above), it has HELD AND CONCEALED evidence that the surface water drainage layout has NOT been installed as approved from as far back as January 2020.
Please now provide the following information:
+++ anything further (including drawings, photographs, CCTV survey records etc) that provides details of what we now know WAS (and presumably remains) an unauthorised surface water drainage layout on 1 September 2023,
+++ a copy of any written agreement by the Council that that UNAUTHORISED surface water drainage can be retained, or confirm that there is no such agreement, and
+++ copies of any CONTEMPORANEOUS notes and/or correspondence regarding the closure of enforcement file 19/00909/NBI on or around 1 July 2024, and the reasoning behind that decision/action.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Whiteside
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
In response to a stage 1 corporate complaint about this development, on 9 April 2024 the Council's Head of Development Management (Nicola Townsend) told us that "the Council’s view is that sustainable drainage is necessary to ensure compliance with the development plan".
According to the government's planning practice guidance ('the 6 tests'), in deciding that Condition 12 was necessary Ms Townsend must have determined that the development would be unacceptable without it and that planning permission would have to be REFUSED if the condition were not to be imposed.
It follows that the Council considers that whatever was installed in terms of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) was unacceptable, and as long as that wholly unacceptable SuDS remains in situ the development itself remains unacceptable in planning terms.