Planning application 20/06345/CONR (22 Briton Crescent) - Sustainable drainage (?)
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
At 6.35 of his report on the above application, the case officer (Joe Sales) wrote:
"In relation to the installation of the drainage system, the applicant has commissioned a CCTV survey which has been shared with officers. Following a review of this survey and on the balance of probability, officers are confident that what has been installed on site, is reflective of the plan submit (sic) in support of this application".
As identified at Condition 15 of the subsequent Decision Notice (23 January 2024), the plan submitted in support of this application was CX05-S1-114A (Surface Water Drainage System).
+++ Please provide a copy of the CCTV survey [and/or any other relevant information] which led officers to reach their conclusions with regard to the acceptability of the installed drainage system and its compliance (or otherwise) with London Plan policy SI 13 (Sustainable drainage).
The information provided should include [but not be restricted to] evidence of the following:
+ the construction, size and location of the 'soakaway' to the rear of the building,
+ that all the surface water drains run TO that 'soakaway', and
+ full details (including type and location) of the 'package pumping station' and 'flow control device', which are mentioned in the notes on drawing CX05-S1-114A .
Since I believe it highly likely that Mr Sales and his Development Management colleagues have little or no experience (or training) in the assessment/analysis of cctv surveys (or of underground drainage systems), I would expect the information provided to include copies of any advice received from a Council drainage engineer (or the Lead Local Flood Authority).
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Whiteside
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
By law, the authority should normally have responded promptly and by 29 July 2024 at the latest.
Please provide all the information requested, without further undue delay. If I don't receive a full response by 1 August 2024 I will ask the Information Commissioner to intervene.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Whiteside
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/10177
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:
Planning application 20/06345/CONR/ (22 Briton Cres)
+++ Please provide a copy of the CCTV survey [and/or any other relevant
information] which led officers to reach their conclusions with regard to
the acceptability of the installed drainage system and its compliance (or
otherwise) with London Plan policy SI 13 (Sustainable drainage).
Please See drawing attached.
The information provided should include [but not be restricted to]
evidence of the following:
+ the construction, size and location of the soakaway to the rear of the
building
Provided on drawing CX05-S1-114A
+ that all the surface water drains run TO that soakaway
Provided on drawing CX05-S1-114A
+ full details (including type and location) of the package pumping
station and flow control device, which are mentioned in the notes on
drawing CX05-S1-114A
These were never included on the drawing CX05-S1-114A as I’m not aware
that any pumps were installed. Water can be directed to the soakaway
without the need for a pump.
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:
[1]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: [2][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 Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Croydon Council
References
Visible links
1. https://croydon.disclosure-log.co.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]
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 Mr Whiteside
Further to our response earlier today to your Information request, please
find a further document which was not attached.
Please accept our apologies that this was missed off your response.
Kind regards
Information Team
Croydon Council
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 'Planning application 20/06345/CONR (22 Briton Crescent) - Sustainable drainage (?)'.
The key objective of this request was to ascertain what it was (within the CCTV survey and/or elsewhere) which led “officers” to reach their conclusions with regard to the accuracy of drawing CX05-S1-114A and compliance (or otherwise) of the installed drainage system with London Plan policy SI 13. As yet, there has been NOTHING provided to justify those conclusions.
To point at CX05-S1-114A as evidence that what is shown on that same drawing is accurate (or honest) is ridiculous and obviously unacceptable.
With regard to details of the “package pumping station and flow control device, you have provided only anonymous ‘hearsay’, which serves only to suggest that the most recently approved drawing contains conflicting/misleading information!
The drawing now provided (CX-05-PH-52-EX-01B) is dated 21 January 2020. But since October 2020, officers (including Joe Sales) have been in possession of photographic evidence (supplied by residents) showing that there was not one (as shown here), but TWO drainage runs that discharge into the foul sewer, and NOT directly to the road as shown but via an adjacent property.
In December 2020, Nicola Townsend approved a ‘non-material’ application (20/05913/NMA) which included a REVISION to the ‘drainage mains connection’, similar (but certainly not identical) to that which had already been installed. That REVISED (but still inaccurate) drawing (CX05-S73-105) showed an identical drainage layout [and mains connection] to that shown on the recently approved drawing CX05-S1-114A .
The ‘drainage strategy’ details shown on the drawing provided here (apparently issued only ‘For Information’) are therefore significantly different to ALL of those that have so far been approved, including those shown on CX05-PA-114, ‘embedded’ within the Flood Risk Assessment approved in October 2018 as part of application 18/04026/FUL. (NOTE: CX05-PA-114 showed that ALL water from the development (surface and foul) would discharge to Briton Close, NOT to Briton Crescent!)
• Most of SW drains were NOT fully surveyed, due to blockages. At least one was not surveyed at all.
• NO evidence has been provided of the existence (location/size etc) of an underground tank, or of whether any such tank is designed/installed for the purposes of ‘infiltration’ or ‘attenuation’.
• I note that due to the risk of subsidence and failure of building foundations, CIRIA document C574 Engineering In Chalk advises that ‘where chalk is of low density or its density is unknown’, an infiltration tank should be sited at least 10m away from any foundations. (Building Regulations Part H also requires that any ‘soakaway’ must be 5m away). But in this case, ALL the drawings now available show the ‘infiltration tank’ to be only around 3m from the new building.
• I also note that no comments have been provided by the ‘specialists’ who could/should have been consulted, such as the Council’s drainage engineers or the Lead Local Flood Authority.
In the circumstances, it is simply impossible to see HOW officers (or residents) can be in any way ‘confident’ that what has been installed on site is reflective of what is shown on drawing CX05-S1-114A, or that EITHER complies with the relevant development plan policies and/or CIRIA guidance.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Whiteside
Dear [email address],
Regulation 11 (4) requires that the Council provides the outcome of its internal review "as soon as possible and no later than 40 working days after the date of receipt of the representations". That is/was by on or around 8 October 2024.
If I do not receive the outcome of the review by 18 October 2024, I will submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the Council's handling of this request.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Whiteside
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
Acknowledgement: Internal Review in relation to request FOI/10177
Thank you for your e-mail of 13/10/24. Unfortunately your internal review
request e-mail of 11/8/24 did not arrive directly back into your request
ref 10177 and therefore, had not been logged. We have now traced your
e-mail and your internal review request has been logged and sent onto our
legal services team to be reviewed. We have explained what has happened
here and asked for your review to be dealt with as quickly as possible.
Please accept our sincerest apologies for this error.
If you have any queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Kind regards
Information Team
Dear [email address],
The Council has acknowledged that it received my request for internal review on 11 August 2024.
As the Council’s initial response and internal review response were both late, the Council has AGAIN breached regulations 14 and 11 respectively.
I will now AGAIN complain to the Information Commissioner about the Council's handling of the request.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Whiteside
Dear Mr Whiteside
Thank you for your e-mail. The acknowledgement you received was an auto
generated acknowledgement that your e-mail had reached our system, this
however is not an acknowledgement and confirmation of your internal review
request.
Again, please accept our apologies for the misunderstanding.
Kind regards
Information Team
Croydon Council
Dear [Croydon Borough Council request email],
The Council has acknowledged that it received my request for internal
review on 11 August 2024.
As the Council"s initial response and internal review response were both
late, the Council has AGAIN breached regulations 14 and 11 respectively.
I will now AGAIN complain to the Information Commissioner about the
Councils handling of the request.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Whiteside
Dear [email address],
There is no 'misunderstanding'.
I have now complained to the ICO.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Whiteside
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
LBC Ref: FOI/10177 - Progress Report
Having submitted a complaint to the ICO on 17 October, on 23 October 2024 a CASE OFFICER wrote as follows, on behalf of the Group Manager (Alex Ganotis):
"We are accepting the case for investigation without an internal review as it has already been more than 40 working days since you requested it. ...
Once a CASE OFFICER is assigned and has concluded their investigation, they will inform you of their decision." (ICO Case Ref: IC-338861-J0V8).
For information, on 9 July 2024 I received a similar note on behalf of Mr Ganotis in another case (about Croydon's Library Service). They are (apparently) still waiting for a case officer to be assigned. In the meantime, four of Croydon's libraries are due to be closed this week.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...
Dear Mr. Whiteside,
Further to your email dated 11 August 2024, in which you requested an
Internal Review of the Council’s response to your request for information
made under the Environmental Information Regulations, I have now concluded
this review, and I am able to reply as follows.
In your request for Internal Review, you asked the Council to reconsider
your request as you believed that you had not been provided with the
information requested.
In your request for information dated 30 June 2024, you requested the
following information:
“At 6.35 of his report on the above application, the case officer (Joe
Sales) wrote:
"In relation to the installation of the drainage system, the applicant has
commissioned a CCTV survey which has been shared with officers. Following
a review of this survey and on the balance of probability, officers are
confident that what has been installed on site, is reflective of the plan
submit (sic) in support of this application".
As identified at Condition 15 of the subsequent Decision Notice (23
January 2024), the plan submitted in support of this application was
CX05-S1-114A (Surface Water Drainage System).
+++ Please provide a copy of the CCTV survey [and/or any other relevant
information] which led officers to reach their conclusions with regard to
the acceptability of the installed drainage system and its compliance (or
otherwise) with London Plan policy SI 13 (Sustainable drainage).
The information provided should include [but not be restricted to]
evidence of the following:
+ the construction, size and location of the soakaway to the rear of the
building,
+ that all the surface water drains run TO that soakaway, and
+ full details (including type and location) of the package pumping
station and flow control device, which are mentioned in the notes on
drawing CX05-S1-114A .
Since I believe it highly likely that Mr Sales and his Development
Management colleagues have little or no experience (or training) in the
assessment/analysis of cctv surveys (or of underground drainage systems),
I would expect the information provided to include copies of any advice
received from a Council drainage engineer (or the Lead Local Flood
Authority).”
The Council responded to you on the 9 August 2024 and provided the
following response:
“…+++ Please provide a copy of the CCTV survey [and/or any other relevant
information] which led officers to reach their conclusions with regard to
the acceptability of the installed drainage system and its compliance (or
otherwise) with London Plan policy SI 13 (Sustainable drainage).
Please See drawing attached.
The information provided should include [but not be restricted to]
evidence of the following:
+ the construction, size and location of the soakaway to the rear of the
building
Provided on drawing CX05-S1-114A
+ that all the surface water drains run TO that soakaway
Provided on drawing CX05-S1-114A
+ full details (including type and location) of the package pumping
station and flow control device, which are mentioned in the notes on
drawing CX05-S1-114A
These were never included on the drawing CX05-S1-114A as I’m not aware
that any pumps were installed. Water can be directed to the soakaway
without the need for a pump.”
In your request for an Internal Review dated 11 August 2024, you stated
the following:
“I am writing to request an internal review of Croydon Borough Councils
handling of my FOI request Planning application 20/06345/CONR (22 Briton
Crescent) - Sustainable drainage ().
The key objective of this request was to ascertain what it was (within the
CCTV survey and/or elsewhere) which led "officers” to reach their
conclusions with regard to the accuracy of drawing CX05-S1-114A and
compliance (or otherwise) of the installed drainage system with London
Plan policy SI 13. As yet, there has been NOTHING provided to justify
those conclusions.
To point at CX05-S1-114A as evidence that what is shown on that same
drawing is accurate (or honest) is ridiculous and obviously unacceptable.
With regard to details of the "package pumping station and flow control
device, you have provided only anonymous ‘hearsay", which serves only to
suggest that the most recently approved drawing contains
conflicting/misleading information!
The drawing now provided (CX-05-PH-52-EX-01B) is dated 21 January 2020.
But since October 2020, officers (including Joe Sales) have been in
possession of photographic evidence (supplied by residents) showing that
there was not one (as shown here), but TWO drainage runs that discharge
into the foul sewer, and NOT directly to the road as shown but via an
adjacent property.
In December 2020, Nicola Townsend approved a ‘non-material" application
(20/05913/NMA) which included a REVISION to the ‘drainage mains
connection", similar (but certainly not identical) to that which had
already been installed. That REVISED (but still inaccurate) drawing
(CX05-S73-105) showed an identical drainage layout [and mains connection]
to that shown on the recently approved drawing CX05-S1-114A ..
The ‘drainage strategy" details shown on the drawing provided here
(apparently issued only ‘For Information") are therefore significantly
different to ALL of those that have so far been approved, including those
shown on CX05-PA-114, ‘embedded" within the Flood Risk Assessment approved
in October 2018 as part of application 18/04026/FUL. (NOTE: CX05-PA-114
showed that ALL water from the development (surface and foul) would
discharge to Briton Close, NOT to Briton Crescent!)
• Most of SW drains were NOT fully surveyed, due to blockages. At least
one was not surveyed at all.
• NO evidence has been provided of the existence (location/size etc) of an
underground tank, or of whether any such tank is designed/installed for
the purposes of ‘infiltration" or ‘attenuation".
• I note that due to the risk of subsidence and failure of building
foundations, CIRIA document C574 Engineering In Chalk advises that ‘where
chalk is of low density or its density is unknown", an infiltration tank
should be sited at least 10m away from any foundations. (Building
Regulations Part H also requires that any ‘soakaway" must be 5m away). But
in this case, ALL the drawings now available show the ‘infiltration tank"
to be only around 3m from the new building.
• I also note that no comments have been provided by the ‘specialists" who
could/should have been consulted, such as the Council"s drainage engineers
or the Lead Local Flood Authority.
In the circumstances, it is simply impossible to see HOW officers (or
residents) can be in any way ‘confident" that what has been installed on
site is reflective of what is shown on drawing CX05-S1-114A, or that
EITHER complies with the relevant development plan policies and/or CIRIA
guidance.”
On receiving your request for an Internal Review, I contacted the Head of
Development Management, who has provided additional information in answer
to the substantive issues raised in your Internal Review.
I have been informed that in respect of the "package pumping station and
flow control device” no further details are held.
Further in respect of drawing CX-05-PH-52-EX-01B dated 21 January 2020
again no additional information was provided to the Planning Service, in
relation to the drainage following this date; a soakaway is installed
within the rear area of the property. This noted within the officer’s
report of the application.
Lastly as a minor development, such proposals are not subject to LLFA
consultation and officers are required to refer to standing advice and
assess applications against relevant policies.
If you are not content with the outcome of the Internal Review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely,
Howard Passman
020 8726 6000 ext. 27103
Resources Directorate
Legal Services Division
12th Floor
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount.
Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
According to Mr Passman, what ‘additional information’ has now arrived was provided by the Head of Development Management which I assume means Nicola Townsend ... the same Nicola Townsend who made the decision to grant permission for this three-year-old planning application. So no conflict of interest then …?
"package pumping station” – site levels
Having earlier implied that a "package pumping station” was never installed, Townsend now confirms that the Council holds no details of one, so we must assume that both foul and surface water fall by gravity to their discharge point, be those separate or shared.
NOTE: The rear of the Site is over a metre higher than the front, which makes the claim that the surface water from the front makes its way (up) to a tank at the rear by gravity, somewhat difficult to believe! It certainly seems highly impractical, without some sort of pump.
On further review, we can see that drawing CX-05-PH-52-EX-01B contains more confusing/contradictory information regarding levels. What are assumed to be as-built invert levels for the drainage runs have been added in May 2024 (i.e AFTER the relevant approval). Those levels vary significantly from what are shown on the drawing as the ‘designed’ levels in Jan 2020, which were clearly related to a building with a ground floor level a good deal higher than what has been built.
+++ In Jan 2020, the developer and/or his consultants were designing to a finished ground floor level of around 123.300 (i.e at around the same level as the very back of the site), when according to the now approved drawings the as-built ground floor sits over a metre lower, at 122.100.
Looking back, we can also see that the ‘cellular’ tank approved as part of the original flood risk assessment (7.8 x 4.6 x 4.0m deep) was of considerably greater capacity than the ‘soakaway’ now approved by Ms Townsend (7.0 x 4.0 x1.2m).
+++ So IF there is a tank installed, it seems likely to be of a size to cater ONLY for a minor proportion of the development’s rainwater, with the majority of that ‘stormwater’ (around 75%) heading for the foul (only) sewer, contrary to adopted planning policies and increasing the risk of flooding.
“flow control device” - flood risk
A flow control device WOULD be required IF (as evidence provided to the Council in October 2020 suggests) some of the surface water (as well as foul water) could be being discharged into the foul ONLY public sewer in Briton Crescent, via the adjacent property. In such circumstances on other developments, Thames Water have insisted that the rate of the surface water discharge is restricted to 2 l/sec, as opposed to the 5 l/sec still referred to on the now approved drawing.
+++ So if there IS ‘stormwater’ heading for the foul (only) public sewer and (as Townsend has now confirmed) there IS no flow control device installed, the development poses an even greater risk of flooding than the Council (and Thames Water) have been known to approve elsewhere.
Mr Passman also relays the news that “in respect of drawing CX-05-PH-52-EX-01B dated 21 January 2020 … no additional information was provided to the Planning Service in relation to the drainage following this date”.
+++ But I hadn’t asked whether any had. What I had reminded the Council was that from October 2020, officers (including Sales) knew or should have known that there was direct evidence (supplied by residents) that what had already been installed did NOT comply with what is shown on the drawing that has since been approved. (NOR for that matter does it comply with either of the drainage layouts disclosed as part of this request for information!)
Ms Townsend (via Mr Passman) tells us that “a soakaway is installed within the rear area of the property. This noted (sic) within the officer’s report of the application.” Which takes us back to where were started.
+++ That something is shown on a drawing and ‘noted’ by Mr Sales does not make it ‘fact’, and there has STILL been no evidence provided to justify such a claim or to counter the photographic evidence submitted by residents.
+++ All that the CCTV survey shows is that at the time of the survey whatever drainage system had been installed was not fit for purpose.
Ms Townsend ‘signs off’ by reminding us that as a “minor” planning application (less than 10 dwellings), the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) does not NEED to be consulted regarding the drainage proposals. But that does NOT mean that her Teams CANNOT consult and there are certainly examples of where they DO. Take 28 Grasmere Road, Purley for instance, yet another nine unit development.
What the LLFA initially advised the case officer there (19/02898/DISC) is that “where infiltration measures are the means for discharge of runoff from the site we would expect to see soakage testing for the site in line with BRE365 to confirm the infiltration rates. The report appears to use an assumed infiltration rate and this is not adequate at this stage.”. When the subsequent site investigation showed that the ground conditions were not favourable for infiltration, those types of SuDS were no longer proposed, and the developer was forced to investigate attenuation, with a ‘reduced’ discharge to the foul (only) sewer!
+++ Three years later (sound familiar?) and having since been dismissed at appeal, that application to discharge the SuDS condition remains undetermined.
For 22 Briton Crescent meanwhile, as far as we are aware there has STILL been no infiltration test(s) provided, OR any reliable evidence of the installation of an infiltration (OR attenuation) tank, OR details of any on-site inspections (by Planning Enforcement, for instance) to check that a tank of the type/size described is even likely to exist.
+++ A final thought. If this is the only CCTV drainage survey available, it would be interesting to know the basis of the building control body’s decision to issue a Final Certificate for this development, on or around 1 December 2022.
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 ()
The ICO have now given the Council 10 working days to respond. But in the meantime … a little ‘context’…
On 15 October 2020, Development Management’s South Team Leader (Richard Freeman) informed residents that the approved drawing being used to monitor the drainage works on this development was “CX05-PA-114 – embedded in their drainage strategy”. The Head of Development Management (Nicola Townsend) was copied into his email.
On 19 October 2020, photographs showing that the drainage already installed did NOT comply with drawing CX05-PA-114 were submitted to the Council’s then-Enforcement Team Leader (Robert Snodin). The case officer (Joe Sales) and Mr Freeman were copied in.
In January 2024 however, in his report on this 3 year old application (20/06345/CONR), Mr Sales advised/persuaded the delegated decision-maker (Ms Townsend) that an ’administrative error’ and ‘incorrect reference’ within the original permission (18/04026/FUL), meant that contrary what we had been told CX05-PA-114 had never been an approved drawing.
Which is handy (for some), when it comes to covering up comprehensive breach of planning control (and development plan policy), enabled (or is it encouraged) by consistently inadequate (i.e. non-existent) planning enforcement.