Posted by: swinemoor | May 6, 2010

More on the Sequential Test

The Flood Risk Assessment for the Swinemoor Lane Site (which incidentally covered both fields) was prepared on 2nd January 2009 by East Ridings Consultants Ltd of Walkington. In the preamble this states:

The Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared on the presumption that the Local Planning Authority, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council has applied the sequential test to the development and it has past such test.

Lesson one: never make presumptions: the ERYC had not!

It goes on to say:

The development falls into the more vulnerable category as defined in table D2 of PPS25 and therefore the exception test must also be applied.

Why is this important? Well, as mentioned previously, the Sequential Test was not produced by GVA Grimley (not the ERYC) until the 19th July 2009 and the Exception Test was c0mpleted by Curtins Consulting on 30th June 2009. This raises some fundamental questions regarding the production of these tests:

  1. Why were East Ridings Consultants under the assumption that the ERYC had applied the Sequential Test to the development and that it had passed the test?
  2. Why was the Exception Test not applied until 30th June 2009 when the PCT were told by both East Ridings Consultants and the Environment Agency that this was required in January 2009  and October 2008 respectively?
  3. Why did GVA Grimley prepare the Sequential Test six months after the non-refundable deposit had been paid and not the ERYC?
  4. Why are the PCT using so many different consultants for this one aspect of the planning application?
  5. Why was a Flood Risk Assessment carried out on the Swinemoor Lane site when the test that should have decided that this was the most suitable of the 28 sites under consideration had not yet been carried out?

These are questions to which the people of Beverley deserve an answer. The timeline relating to the choice of the Swinemoor Lane site simply does not make sense. Were the tests carried out to justify a decision that had already been made? This scenario was put to the ERYC Planning Committee at the pre-planning meeting on the 14th September 2009 and Councillor Pearson called for an investigation into the allegations surrounding the timeline associated with the application, prior to the granting of Outline Planning Permission. Unfortunately his advice was sadly not listened to. However, it is still not to late to save the Medieval view from Swinemoor Lane across the common for our children and ensure that the hospital is built on the best site, that is next to the ambulance station on Driffield Road.


Responses

  1. […] Sequential Test made easy A lot has been mad made in these pages of the importance of the Sequential Test in deflecting an objection from the Environment Agency and the errors contained within it. However, […]

  2. […] Any Government body can only base its decision on the information supplied to it. If that information is factually incorrect or is deficient, any decision based upon it is likely to be poor.  As the techies would say ‘garbage in, garbage out.’  It was the ERYC’s planning department’s job to ensure that any errors or deficiencies in the submissions presented to them were corrected.  For some reason, in the case of this hospital on this site, they chose not to. […]

  3. […] these. This is why a sub-standard ‘hospital’ was built on supposedly protected flood-prone land in spite of having ancient hedgerows and Protected Species when there were other, suitable sites in […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: