Objection to Development at Brentwood, Glen Ri se, Planning Application 26/00322/VAC, 2 4/01264/OUT and 25/01757/REM
This assessment serves as a formal objection to the proposed variation and discharge of conditions at Brentwood, Glen Rise. The application relies on a "siloed" technical narrative that fails to account for how physical site constraints—specifically a 5-6m vertical fall , cohesive clay soils , and unverified infilled ground —intersect to create substantial risk. Critically, the recommendation by the Contaminated Land Officer to discharge Condition 3 is based on a fundamental investigative failure: the applicant's own consultant admits in Document 1469798 (p. 13) that borehole WS04 , specifically intended to target a potentially contaminated infilled pond, was relocated due to "very dense vegetation" and therefore the ground in that specific area remains physically untested. To claim that "if there was significant contamination the report would have identified it" is logically and technically flawed when the primary target area was never accessed.
The Evidence Matrix: Statutory & Regulatory Failures
| Materiality | Evidence Location | Discrepancy Description | Statutory/Regulatory Basis | Relevant Case Law/Precedent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Doc 1469798, p. 13; Officer Comments | Unverified Contamination Risk: The officer recommends discharge despite the report admitting access was "not available" to the infilled pond area. | NPPF Para 189-191; Environment Act 2021 | R (on the application of Wetters) v Guildford BC [2022] |
| SIGNIFICANT | Doc 1455201, p. 4 (Vehicle Tracking) | Topographical Misrepresentation: Schematic tracking assumes a flat horizontal plane for a 5-6m vertical fall. | Manual for Streets 2 (Vertical Clearances); NPPF Para 112 | Wednesbury Unreasonableness |
| SIGNIFICANT | FRA Doc 1469800; SuDS Strategy | Hydraulic Conflict: Proposed infiltration drainage is sited in documented cohesive clay (non-permeable). | Non-statutory Technical Standards for SuDS; NPPF Para 167 | High Court: Tameside MBC v SSE [1976] |
| MODERATE | Ecology Addendum; Arboricultural Impact | Infeasibility of Access: Proposed vegetation clearance/mitigation fails to account for heavy plant machinery requirements on steep slopes. | CDM Regulations 2015; Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 | Statutory Duty of Care |
Officer Decision Refutation & Litigation Risk
The Contaminated Land Officer’s response (dated Jan 2024) ignores the investigative constraint explicitly stated in the consultant’s own methodology. The recommendation to discharge Condition 3 is legally vulnerable as it relies on a report that failed to achieve its own stated objectives (investigating the infilled pond).
A decision to grant or discharge conditions based on incomplete technical data—where that incompleteness was avoidable—constitutes a failure to take into account a material consideration. This places the LPA at significant risk of a Judicial Review. Specifically, the "Low Risk" classification is "Wednesbury Unreasonable" because no reasonable authority could conclude the risk is low when the primary risk location (WS04) remains unpenetrated.
Cross Discipline Correlation Matrix
| Theme | Discrepancy / Conflict | Resulting Risk Profile |
|---|---|---|
| Geo-Environmental vs Drainage | Geo-report confirms "significant clay content" and "unverified made ground." Drainage strategy assumes "infiltration to ground." | High: Surface water flooding and hydrostatic pressure buildup against building foundations. |
| Topography vs Transport | Topo survey shows 1:8 gradients. Transport tracking diagrams use 2D "flat plane" simulation. | High: Refuse vehicle "grounding" and inability to clear the vertical apex of the entrance. |
| Ecology vs Construction | Ecology report identifies "retained habitat" on steep bank. Construction Management Plan requires heavy piling rigs in same location. | Moderate: Destruction of protected habitat during essential site stabilization works. |
Technical Reasons for modelling Failure
The "Flat Earth" Assumption: Vehicle tracking and drainage software defaulting to a flat plane. Unless the engineer manually inputs the 5-6m vertical fall into a 3D Digital Terrain Model (DTM), the software will show a "Pass" for a refuse vehicle that would, in reality, struggle with the gradient and turning radius combined.
Data Omission (The Infilled Pond): modelling programs are "Garbage In, Garbage Out" systems. Because the Ground Investigation admitted to relocating borehole WS04 due to vegetation, the "Made Ground" data for the infilled pond was likely never entered into the structural or drainage models. The software is modelling "virgin soil" where "unstable fill" actually exists.
Hydrostatic Head Neglect: The drainage model likely calculates how much rain falls on the site, but not accounting for the Hydrostatic Head (the pressure of water moving down a 5-6m slope through cohesive clay). This pressure can lead to "piping" or slope instability, which is rarely captured in standard pipe-network modelling.
Modelling Conclusion
The probability of a modelling failure is nearly certain because the individual "Pass" results in the Transport and Drainage reports rely on idealized conditions that the Geo-Environmental report proves do not exist. The body of work functions as three discrete, disparate and successful simulations of an imaginary flat site, rather than one unified simulation of the actual sloped, infilled reality of Glen Rise.