Requests and responses by date
Requested Wed 05 April 2017
Responded Wed 05 April 2017
In the light of the CLU and the subsequent new application HS/FA/17/00003 for this site this discharge of drainage conditions is very relevant
The discharge application for drainage HS/CD/15/488 was discharged on the 13/07/2015 by delegated powers.
The Southern Water Letter dated the 22/06/2015 does not recommend discharge of this condition:
The delegated report states that conflicting advice has been provided by Southern Water and that a letter from 19/06 agrees to connection:
Southern Water - Conflicting advice. However, letter dated 19/06 agrees to connection to combined sewers.
ESCC SUDS Team - information acceptable to discharge condition 5.
The delegated report then concludes that the details are acceptable and agreed by Southern Water
Condition 5 - Details acceptable and agreed by Southern Water
I can find nothing in the document trail for this application which supports the statement that Southern Water consider the details acceptable and have agreed discharge.
The letter of the 22/06/15 clearly states that Southern Water cannot recommend discharge.
Question 1: Could you please explain that given this conflict of advice from Southern Water it was decided to discharge the condition based upon the contents of an earlier letter dated the 19/06?
Question 2: Would it not be normal practice to assume that the latest statement from Southern Water takes precedent over a previous statement?
Question 3: Would it not be normal practice to contact Southern Water to resolve this apparent conflict?
Question 4: Could you please provide a copy of the letter from 19/06 from Southern Water - it is not on the application website.
Question 5: Could you please explain what measures were taken to contract Southern Water to resolve the conflict of advice.
Question 6: Could you please provide copies of all correspondence between Southern Water and HBC concerning this application including the letter dated 19/06.
Please take this as a formal request under FOI should it be necessary.
I would be grateful for a timely response to these questions as they have bearing on application HS/FA/17/00003 which is open for public consultation until the3/03/2017 only.
I would be grateful if this correspondence could be posted as a comment against application HS/FA/17/00003.
Q1 - This is not a request for recorded information
Q2 - This is not a request for recorded information
Q3 - This is not a request for recorded information
Q4 - Please see attached
Q5 - This is not a request for recorded information
Q6 - Please see attached
Freedom of Information