E-mail exchange with Cheshire East Council Local Planning Authority, Friends of Poynton Pool (FoPP) and Poynton Town Council regarding the deferral, inaccuracies in the application and repeated requests for a collaboration meeting

Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 4:54 PM
Subject: FW: Email to [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority] post SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Further to the Strategic Planning Board meeting last week and our brief chat following the meeting. The Town Council thought it might be helpful if we set out a summary of our concerns raised at the meeting and which were considered:

Volume of Water – EA have agreed to undertake a bathometric survey
Level of the embankment clay core is unknown – Identified by Flood Study as requiring investigation
Geotechnical properties of the embankment – Identified by Flood Study as requiring investigation
Catchment redrawn by the Flood Study – it doesn’t match the catchment set out in the flood estimation handbook or local knowledge
Impact of coal mines on catchment behaviour
Lack of gauged catchment data even though it is acknowledged that flows for this type of catchment are difficult to estimate
Detailed topographic study to show correct height of current freeboard and inconsistencies with the top water level figures
Current risk of the dam failing and what the reduction in that risk would be once the works are completed.
Extent of flooding – EA Reservoir flood maps primary purpose is for screening, to delineate the absolute maximum potential flood extent in a worst-case scenario. The mapping makes no attempt to assess the likelihood or risk of that consequence occurring.
If the volume of water released is incorrect this is likely to affect the potential flood extent.
Only wet day breaches been taken into account in calculating the risk.
Consequences of removing the trees and subsequent reduction in the density of the embankment on the structural integrity of the dam
Supervising Engineers Reports in 2019, 2021 and 2022 states “Fortunately, the crest is very wide and there does not appear to be a risk of the entire crest width being damaged by a fallen tree along the upstream face” this statement casts doubt on the assertion that the trees increase the likelihood of structural failure”.
Mitigation planting at Walnut Tree Farm

Issues that were included in our submission but did not have time in the SPB meeting to raise include the risk of flooding to properties on Anglesey Drive where at present there is no flooding. Work has been proposed by Jacobs but it was conceded that the nature of the ditch is unknown. Breach analysis showing the extent of the flooding at Vicarage Lane, Tulworth Road, Anglesey Drive and other impacted areas after the works are completed compared to the current situation should be made available. Flood risk maps showing flood risk zones with no breach.

Given all the issues identified we would ask that a revised flood study is undertaken using validated input data as set out above. The results of this updated flood study in terms of dam breach and impact (e.g. people at risk, likely loss of life and cost of property damage) could then be properly considered by the Strategic Planning Board.

We would be happy to work with yourselves and Friends of Poynton Pool to ensure that the enquiries from the SPB can be addressed. Might it be useful to have a meeting of all parties to determine the best way forward including points of contact for all parties, which representatives from each party, appointment of experts and their terms of reference?

We firmly believe that all alternative design options for Poynton Pool need to be independently re-evaluated for reservoir overflow and crest regularization when updated flood study results and site investigations are available.

Kind regards,

[Poynton Town Council]

Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 4:21 PM
Subject: FW: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Poynton Town Council] and Mike Ellison

I write further to your recent emails regarding the deferral of application 23/4152M from the Strategic Planning Board on 24 April. As you will be aware the application was deferred for the following reasons:

To consider and update where necessary any inaccuracies in the submitted data to ensure modelling is accurate.
To review the current condition and risks associated with the existing dam wall, and the impact caused by removal of trees on the dam.
Encourage engagement with third parties to consider / explain alternatives.
To instigate a further independent review, if necessary.
To review the location of the proposed mitigation and consideration of any alternatives

The responsibility for addressing each of these reasons for deferral lies with officers of the local planning authority (LPA), and as such the process will be led by planning officers. To do this I will need to initially obtain information from the applicant and interested parties (specifically Poynton Town Council (PTC) and Friends of Poynton Pool (FoPP)).

Therefore, taking each of the points above in turn, I propose the following:

Please can you provide me with a list of what information (relevant to the planning application) you consider to be inaccurate or requires updating, together with evidence to demonstrate why you believe this to be the case?
I have asked the applicant to respond to this point regarding the condition of the dam.
This is the start of the engagement with you and the applicant. If a meeting is considered to be necessary, this will be facilitated by the LPA and will follow an agenda set by the LPA. In the meantime, please can you provide me with details of any alternative schemes (not already considered) that you would like to be examined? As much detail as possible will be helpful. Lowering the water level was one option mentioned during the meeting, which LPA will be raising with the applicant.
The need for an independent review will be dependent on the outcome/success of the engagement process.
I have asked the applicant to respond to this point regarding alternative options for mitigation.

Please can you provide the information requested above (in points 1 and 3) by Friday 31 May 2024.

Many thanks and kind regards

[Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2024 21:32
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Thank you for your email. We note that the deferral reasons points 1 – 5 are taken from the minutes of the Strategic Planning Board (SPB) meeting of 24 April. We have considered the minutes against the recording of the meeting and find them to be inaccurate in several respects, which we will take up separately.

Regarding the reasons for deferral, reason 3 is not accurate because rather than simply request engagement with third parties be encouraged, SPB (Councillor Gardiner) specifically requested a meeting between technical representatives of Cheshire East Council and Friends of Poynton Pool (FoPP), and that if necessary a third-party arbiter should be involved. Then a report should come back to the committee if this application is considered the appropriate way forward. If it is not, he would expect a new application. This is not a minor point. Friends of Poynton Pool have considerable local knowledge and significant technical expertise and experience, and as directed by SPB, there must be a meeting or meetings for the rational discussion of the complex technical issues that are in dispute.

Regarding your proposal, FoPP would initially respond as follows:

We have already provided detailed information in the report submitted with our objection to the planning application, (copy attached) and our subsequent response to the Jacobs technical memorandum. In addition, since submitting these documents FoPP has identified that the main outflow pipe diameter between manhole 1 and manhole 2 is 600mm, not 450mm as stated in Jacobs’ Initial Options Report.
Noted.
Engagement is a two-way process which involves working collaboratively to develop joint solutions. A meeting of technical experts was requested by SPB but not explicitly set out in the minutes. However, even though not formally documented, it was requested and FoPP considers a meeting/meetings of the parties’ technical experts to be an essential part of the engagement process and in accordance with the SPB deferral decision. We dispute the inclusion of ‘If a meeting is considered to be necessary’.
We would ask that any independent review is availed of all the information and not limited to the selective presentation that was submitted with the planning application.
Noted.

In conclusion, we are keen to work with the applicant to find a reasonable and proportionate solution, but we consider it unreasonable that we, as a volunteer community group are being asked to needlessly repeat ourselves while the applicant’s agent is being heavily funded to support an unsustainable approach that is contrary to 22 of the council’s own policies.

We would ask you to review your position on a meeting of technical experts and your request for ‘a list of what information (relevant to the planning application) you consider to be inaccurate or requires updating, together with evidence to demonstrate why you believe this to be the case’.

In the public interest, please will you upload your email and this response to the planning portal.

Regards,

Mike Ellison

For Friends of Poynton Pool

Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 15:50
Subject: FW: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear Mike

The deferral from SPB is not an opportunity to re-open the whole matter of how the recommendations within the flood study are implemented. The purpose is to obtain information to further inform Members’ consideration of the planning application for the specific development as proposed.

Engaging with FoPP was referred to within the reasons for the deferral, and Cllr Gardiner “encouraged” there to be a meeting between the technical advisors for the applicant and the technical advisors for FoPP. He did not specifically state that a meeting was required. I expect that a meeting will take place at some point, but not before you have clarified what information you consider to be inaccurate, to ensure that we are all 100% clear on what you are expecting the applicant to update. Any meeting facilitated by the LPA will have a clear agenda relating to matters of disagreement that have been first been identified by the relevant parties. Without this clarification a meeting will be no use.

If you are not the appropriate contact for this, then please let me know and I will approach Mr Tennant, who spoke at the SPB meeting, directly. If you are the appropriate contact, then the level of your engagement is of course entirely up to you. I am familiar with your letters of objection, and they are summarised within the committee report. If you do not wish to add to this and provide the clarity I am seeking, then there is nothing further I can report to Members of your behalf. Your previous comments are already addressed within the original committee report.

The request for the information as set out in my email below, by Friday 31 May 2024, remains.

General correspondence on planning applications such as this email exchange is not information that is published to the planning website.

Kind regards

[Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Please find attached the Town Council’s list of what information we believe are inaccurate, missing or require updating including evidence why we believe this to be the case.

Whilst we note that you have asked for alternative schemes which have not already considered we had understood that previously examined schemes would also be re-examined. Having listened back through the meeting, Cllr Clowes stated the following “I would be interested in looking at some of the options in a bit more detail… I appreciate that if we lower the level of the pool we will be left with exposed banks but there are some amazing engineering solutions. I have been looking at vegetated retentions walls for riverbanks and reservoirs of this kind in relation to projects in the South of the Borough. I think there is an awful lot to be done before making a decision” and Cllr Gardiner stated “I am not convinced that it is the only engineering solution…the council is effectively being bullied by the water authority…into doing something we might all recognise as necessary but without engaging with counterpoints and consider a different way. I’m not convinced today that there is not a different way.”

Regarding the meeting we again thought that this had been agreed as part of the deferral – In repeating the proposal, Cllr Gardiner stated “I would like to encourage that there is a meeting between the council’s technical expert along with a technical representative from Poynton Pool and if necessary a third party arbiter should be involved if there is still a disparity and no agreements with the results presented”.

I look forward to hearing from you in relation to the above points. If you require any further information or if I can be of further assistance in any way, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

[Poynton Town Council]

Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 14:13
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Further to your email below, I am writing to advise that Friends of Poynton Pool will be responding to your request for information by Friday, 31 May.

In view of the General Election announcement yesterday, please can you advise whether Purdah will apply to this planning application, and if so, what will this mean?

Thank you

Kind regards

Friends of Poynton Pool

Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 22:46
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Please find attached a summary of inaccuracies and supporting evidence in respect of the Poynton Pool planning application 23/4152M as requested in your email below.

Kind regards

Friends of Poynton Pool

Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 08:25

Subject: FW: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear FoPP

Thank you FoPP. I confirm receipt.

Kind regards

[Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2024 7:47 PM
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Are you able to answer the question regarding Purdah that I raised in the email below?

Thank you

Kind regards

Friends of Poynton Pool

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 13:36

Subject: FW: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear FoPP

Whilst we are now in the pre-election period until the close of polls on 4 July, I am not aware of any direct implications for the planning application. Did you have something specific in mind? I can confirm that the application will not be going back to SPB until after the General Election in any event.

Kind regards

[Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Hi [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Further to my email of the 17^th of May, are you able to provide us with an update on current progress on dealing with the information that ourselves and Friends of Poynton Pool have provided? Are you in a position yet to set up a meeting between the experts as suggested by the committee to ensure that all parties, including the Council (as applicant), the FoPP and Poynton Town Council and all other interested parties work collaboratively to address the technical issues and queries raised.

Is there any further information the Town Council can assist with in taking this matter forward?

Kind regards,

[Poynton Town Council]

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 15:44
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

I note that the summary of inaccuracies that FoPP submitted on 30 May 2024, which is pertinent to this planning application, has not yet been published on the planning application portal.

Please can you arrange for it to be made available on the portal.

Thank you

Kind regards

Friends of Poynton Pool

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 15:44
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

I wonder whether you could provide an update in respect of this request from 18 June? Cheshire East planning are usually very responsive in terms of publishing comments within a matter of hours and yet this document submitted on 30 May is still not on the portal.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future

Kind regards

Friends of Poynton Pool

Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 1:51 PM
Subject: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear All

Thank you for the information that has been provided to date.

As you will be aware a bathymetric survey is scheduled to be carried out by the EA on 27/28 August 2024. I am currently trying to obtain additional information about this, particularly how long it will take to get the results of the survey, before moving forward with further dialogue on this matter.

The reason for this is that if the volume of the reservoir is found to be significantly different to that previously reported (130,000 cubic metres), then I expect the position of all parties may change accordingly.

Clearly, we cannot hold onto this application indefinitely, and a decision will need to be made in a timely manner. Therefore, once I have more information on the timescales for reporting on the bathymetric survey, I will be in touch again.

Kind regards

[Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024; 11:57

Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority],

Further to your email of 12 July, we have questions that you could perhaps answer.

As you are aware, we are seeking an equitable solution to what we consider a substantially inflated risk from Poynton Pool. To this end, we are concerned that the reasons for deferral are fully addressed in your report to the Strategic Planning Board (SPB).

You refer to awaiting results of a bathymetric survey and, in our eyes, it comes across as if this were the sole determinant in how you expect to proceed with the SPB deferral, and this has raised additional questions for us.

You have already set out your interpretation of the reasons for deferral as listed below.

Reasons for deferral:

To consider and update where necessary any inaccuracies in the submitted data to ensure modelling is accurate.
To review the current condition and risks associated with the existing dam wall, and the impact caused by removal of trees on the dam.
Encourage engagement with third parties to consider / explain alternatives.
To instigate a further independent review, if necessary.
To review the location of the proposed mitigation and consideration of any alternatives

Reason 1 should include confirming the actual diameter of the current spillway outlet from manhole 1 to manhole 2, which is 600mm rather than the 450mm used in the Jacobs Initial Options report. Having a cross-sectional area only 56% of the actual (600mm dia.), this has significant implications for the risk of the dam overtopping. Will this investigation be done prior to taking the application back to SPB?

Reason 2 requires investigation of the dam (embankment), the composition of which has significant implications for the erodibility of the embankment and therefore the risk assessment. Will this also be done prior to taking the application back to SPB? FoPP considers this element of investigation to be particularly important because the risk assessment has assumed a ‘clay core’ dam, whereas our limited investigations indicate a clay lined lake with a permeable earth dam that may be acting as a permeable weir. The loss of trees and decay of their roots, as per the application proposal will result in structural changes to the dam that have not been accounted in the risk assessment.

On 6^th June 2023, I put to the Economy and Growth Committee a suggestion that a level crest could be created using ground screws and recycled plastic beams. This was dismissed by the applicant and its engineers. We have since provided evidence that this is in fact a workable solution that has been employed by Stillwater Associates in a very similar situation at Tredegar House Dam in North Wales (Newport City Council Planning ref. 22/0381). In light of it being a workable solution, will this low-cost option now be given due consideration prior to taking the application back to SPB?

Regards,

Mike Ellison

for Friends of Poynton Pool

Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Poynton Town Council] & Mike Ellison

I write further to the deferral of this application from SPB in April, and your subsequent submission of information relating to the reasons for the deferral at the end of May.

As you will be aware, the Environment Agency will be undertaking a bathymetric survey on Poynton Pool on the 27th and 28th August 2024.

In addition, the Council has also recently received formal notice under S12(3) of the Reservoirs Act that an early S10 Inspection has now been recommended by the appointed Supervising Engineer. Consequently, the Council (as Undertaker) is now progressing through the required procurement processes to appoint a new, independent panel engineer (ARPE) to undertake the required survey and inspection works and supporting report within the required timescales.

These timescales will be confirmed once the Panel Engineer has been appointed. Both the bathymetric survey and the S10 inspection have the potential to have material implications upon the current planning application, and the matters to be discussed at any future meeting that we may have with the applicant. The additional Panel Engineer appointment may also assist in providing an independent review on matters where appropriate, as referred to in the reasons for deferral.

Planning officers therefore intend to hold the application in abeyance until the results of these investigations are known, and further engagement with the Town Council and Friends of Poynton Pool, relating specifically to the deferral from SPB, will also be on hold during this time.

I will be in touch again once the results of the bathymetric survey and S10 Inspection are known.

Kind regards

[Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority]

Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024, 09:26

Subject: RE: 23/4152M – Poynton Pool – deferral from SPB

Dear [Cheshire East Council, Local Planning Authority],

Thank you for your email. We are aware of both the scheduled bathymetric survey and the Section 10 Inspection being brought forward. We are however concerned that, despite our repeated representations, there has been no mention of investigating the embankment, investigating the outflow and reviewing the flood study, or revising the risk assessment. Is there any intention to consider these shortcomings in the current application?

We see that we, the community, are being held at arms-length and this is unhelpful given that we are seeking a reasonable and equitable solution to the reported deficiencies in the Poynton Pool reservoir. We had assumed this would also be your objective as Local Planning Authority. It certainly appeared to be the position taken by the Strategic Planning Board.

We again ask that both the LPA and the applicant meaningfully engage with Friends of Poynton Pool and Poynton Town Council.

Regards,

Mike Ellison

For Friends of Poynton Pool