FOCP Dated 31st Aug 2018
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]From: Planning Consents
Subject: FW: 18/00907/CDM | Condition Discharge: Conditions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 19
of application 17/01684/OUT | Home Park Football Ground
Attachments: Photo 1.JPG; Photo 2.JPG; Photo 3.JPG
For the attention of Chris King MRTPI
Dear Chris King,
Please would you advise whether a further planning application will be required before the proposed drainage
arrangements can be implemented? I ask because it looks like major groundworks will be involved and there
doesn’t appear to be an opportunity to comment on related matters which go much wider than drainage and
which are important for the park.
With specific regard to drainage issues and the current application, the four places where testing took place in
2017 have the following objections:
TP1 It is close to and slightly above a known water issue. How can it be shown that the test water was not
simply finding its way to the issue point? Infiltration is supposed to recharge groundwater supplies and not add to
the downstream burden.
TP2 Test failure
TP3 Same comments as for TP1
TP4 The exact location of the test pit needs to be shown as it appears to be very close to an area which is
boggy after rainfall. Water collected here flows slowly to the edge of this area before disappearing into the
ground. Its underground flow path needs to established.
Taken together, the tests do not prove that infiltrated water will achieve the desired effect; i.e. recharged
groundwater supplies. The hydrogeology report dated 08/08/2108 appears to acknowledge this in section 3, page
2, when it says: “Once in the subsoil, the water would likely flow predominately along the soil/bedrock interface or
find its way deeper into the bedrock along lines of local weakness (this would depend upon the local fracture state
of the bedrock, nature of discontinuities, extent of folding etc.)”.
Taking more run-off into unsuitable ground would be highly likely to increase the incidence of spills and boggy
patches which make walking through the park difficult and less enjoyable. Photo 1 (attached) shows one such
patch which already exists on a path in Zoo Field. It is most probably due to a bedrock fold or the remnants of a
zoo structure preventing water from flowing evenly downhill.
No percolation testing was undertaken near the head of the proposed swale. This would be in made ground which
comprises spoil brought there from the previous football stadium in 2002. Photos 2 and 3 (attached) show
exploratory digs in 2013 to assess its suitability for an orchard. They show that the ground quickly saturates
despite its proximity to a known groundwater issue. Poor infiltration in the swale’s upper portion will increase the
likelihood of it over-topping which is also described in section 3 of the hydrogeology report: “water would follow
the contour of the adjacent land and flow overland to the east and north east…...”
2
In summary, the proposed drainage solution will worsen existing problems and does not offer any benefit for the
park. There are other solutions which would support park amenity and we ask that these be identified and
investigated.
Andrew Young
Chair
Friends of Central Park Plymouth
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]From: Cottam, Andy
Sent: 23 August 2018 14:24
To: Planning Consents; King, Chris
Subject: OFFICIAL: RE: Planning Application Consultation - Reference: 18/00907/CDM
Planning Consents, Chris
I've reviewed the documents submitted to discharge Condition 19.
A revised drainage plan for Home Park has been submitted (marked as 'Preliminary') that now
includes a connection from the north end of the swale to central park swale. This is shown as a
piped connection, and the invert elevations of each end of the pipe are not known. There is also
an additional connection to the south end of the Home Park swale and the purpose of this is
unclear.
A FRA has been submitted, dated August 2018, but this makes no reference to the proposed
Home Park swale or the additional connections. The FRA still refers to discharging to an existing
soakaway, and does not describe the proposed attenuated discharge to the Home Park swale.
Western Gateway Site
The surface water drainage proposal for the Western Gateway is acceptable and this section of
the Condition can be discharged, on the basis that drawings are marked as construction issue.
Higher Home Park Site
In consideration of the information submitted and with reference to my previous response dated
the 19/06/18 I consider that Condition 19 cannot be discharged at this time for this section of the
work, as the following information is still required to be submitted:
1. The connection between the zoo field soakaway and wider central park suds system is made
through the provision of the continuation of the open channel swale in lieu of the current proposed
pipe connection.
2. Details of the drainage system serving the ice risk and confirmation that surface water run off
from this area is directed into the on site attenuated system.
3. Confirmation that the proposed temporary Grips and outfall to the zoo field swale will only
operate on a temporary basis during the construction of the works.
4. The rationale for the reduction in on site storage volume and increased discharge to the zoo
field swale.
5. All drawings to be revised accordingly and marked as Construction issue.
6. A CEMP is required to be submitted for both construction and demolition works
7. The FRA should be updated to incorporate the proposed drainage details for both sites
including supporting calculations and modelling with references to the updated construction issue
drawings.
Regards
Andy
2
Andy Cottam BEng CEng MICE
Principal Civil Engineer
Strategic Planning & Infrastructure
Plymouth City Council
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth
PL1 3BJ
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Home 
Register 
Log in 
Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:05 am
