Planning permission status is unclear at this time.

I just looked at  the planning portal and see this:

Important Dates

Latest Site Notice posted on 20/10/2022

Expiry for Consultation 17/02/2023

Target Decision19/05/2023

Decision Made 21/07/2023

What decision has been made? There are no further details of this yet.

Tom Clifford has also called Curo to account with regards to energy efficiency and sustainability . B&NES have agreed that Curo have failed to meet requirements and significant changes need to be made.

Summary follows and full comments can be seen on the planning portal. None of this is enough to stop the application in its tracks, but does show how little regard Curo have had to regulations.

Non-compliant with both SCR6 and SCR8

(Policy SCR6: Sustainable Construction Policy for New Build Residential Development which sets requirements for Space Heating, Energy Use Intensity and Renewable Energy)

(Policy SCR8: Embodied Carbon which Introduces a requirement for large scale development to submit an embodied carbon assessment.)

•  PHPP needs to be used as this is a major application.
  
•  Sustainable Construction Checklist and Energy Summary Tool 2 need to be submitted to demonstrate policy compliance with updated values.
  
• Fabric standards will likely need to be further improved for policy compliance.
  
• More consideration of solar PV placement required to match total energy use – revision of building design roof space may be required.
  
• Entirely insufficient information for SCR8 compliance and a whole embodied carbon assessment is required for compliance to be assessed.

Much has been written about possible flooding due to the construction by Curo. Reports that they have commissioned have said that flooding on the site will not be an issue. However as we have repeatedly stated, this is not the prime concern.

Tom Clifford has once again tackled the planning office and it seems that the issues he raised are being now taken seriously. The following is aa letter he wrote on 2nd March.

FAO D. Roberts Drainage & Flooding Team (LLFA)

I write in reply to your consultation response dated 21/2/2023 regarding the above planning application. Whilst I appreciate you have been asked to comment on the specifics of the surface water drainage proposals within the boundary of the proposed development I am concerned that as LLFA you have no comments to make regarding the wider flooding risk the proposed development poses.

I understand that SUDS and swale will discharge into the ditch on the eastern boundary of the site. This ditch is not engineered or maintained and in the past carried the run-off from Bath Road. The ditch, in turn, flows into a culvert. This culvert is known to be damaged sufficient to restrict flow, with, as far as I am aware, an unknown riparian owner; yet the applicant assumes the culvert will be repaired by the riparian owner to provide free-flow. This approach to minimising the risk of downstream flooding from the development seems pretty cavalier and is something I would have thought the LLFA, given its role in flood prevention, would have some concerns about. (As I am sure you are aware the bottom of Keels Hill already becomes inundated following wet weather events.)

I also note that the applicant is proposing to carry out works under the auspices of the Council, presumably in its capacity as Highways Authority, on drains running under Keels Hill/  Firgrove Lane. To residents like me, this suggests that the wider infrastructure required to manage surface water from the development is inadequate - perhaps to the degree that the proposed development is inappropriate. It has never been established that the wider drainage infrastructure will cope and, indeed, the issue was fudged when the Reserved Matters application was determined.I would appreciate the view of the LLFA on the wider flood risk the proposed development may pose - not its view on the drainage proposals within the boundary of the site

The LLFA have now responded. It does not address the suitability of the downstream infrastructure to receive the surface water drainage but they have noticed that the channel the on-site discharge point feeds into is of smaller dimensions than the discharge point, so, an instant surface
flooding risk(?) They have asked for further information on the size of the receiving channel. Cumulatively, all these surface water issues may
start to add-up.

The Drainage and Flooding team require some more information on this proposal.Regarding the SFA6 C Headwall drawing please can the position of this be marked on to the drainage drawing, to confirm its location.The Outfall swale is showing as 1m wide with a minimum height 0.5m side slopes 1.3m which appears to be discharging into the existing water course which is smaller with a depth of 300mm and 1.2m side slopes.Please can you highlight the whole section of ditch that you are proposing to reprofile.

Thank again to Tom for his work on this.

The latest is that B&NES are aiming for a decision by February 28thh. This probably will not happen as there seem to be a couple of sticking points.

1. Ecology. Insufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to roosting bats. Further information is required to demonstrate no net loss and net gain of biodiversity in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Policies NE3 and NE3a

2. Drainage and flooding. The FRA page 4 shows the existing outfall chamber, this will need to be added onto the drainage drawing. This will also need to show how the ditch is going to be reprofiled up to the headwall.We also require a detailed drawing of the headwall design, it is recommended that this head wall is designed with angled trash screen.Who will be responsible for the maintenance of this and the proposed flow path between the swale and the headwall, is this being adopted by Wessex Water?

https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/webforms/planning/details.html?refval=22%2F03938%2FFUL#documents_Section

There are lots of new documents and drawings to see on the B&NES Planning pages. It is clear that questions are being asked. One in particular was the issue of flooding and drainage.We asked that there ought to be an independent survey done to look at this. Now it seems that there has been a survey done, but one that has been commissioned by Curo which concludes that the site is perfectly fine and not at risk of flooding. We were in fact not so bothered about their site flooding, as we were by the massive amount of runoff that would happen BECAUSE of the site to areas further down. But they maintain that the site poses no threat elsewhere. Based on their calculations.I just hope that some people at B&NES are informed enough to be able to actually look at this and understand it in detail.There are an extraordinary amount of new plans of various things available on the planning site. Whether these will now all be examined in detail remains to be seen. If so we may not hear about it.