Bourne End MarinaI WAS in the public gallery to hear the development control committee verdict on the application by Michael Shanly Group for redevelopment of Bourne End Marina.

I had a copy of the director of planning's report to the committee. I heard comments by Little Marlow councillor Jennings about lack of support for a refusal by the agencies consulted on various matters. Having read the report I wonder if Cllr Jennings had time to do so before he spoke. There seems a difference between technical advice and policy.

Michael Shanly Group has agreement from the Environment Agency that its design for a small housing estate will not cause loss of floodwater capacity if soil is excavated and houses are on stilts. They will flood at peak levels as there are no defences. Safety relies on catwalks to higher ground and a flood monitoring and warning procedure forever. Catwalks will be below peak flood levels and may have to be used when submerged. The Environment Agency has not recommended such development. It has satisfied itself that floodwater will not be displaced elsewhere if houses are built in this way and it suggests conditions on any permission granted.

The director's report includes a letter from the Environment Agency to Wycombe Council which refers to policy matters thus: "Agency policy is to protect flood plains from any change that would make matters worse. Complete restoration of the flood plain is the ideal but legislation is not generally framed for that to be achieved and so a balance must be made on overall proposals. Introduction of increased numbers of residents in areas liable to flood is a matter for your council to determine and this agency would normally support refusals when the risk is considered to be significant."

A development brief for the site in 1998 recognised a need for mixed redevelopment to generate funds to create a modern, viable marina. Michael Shanly Group has plans for a maximum density of housing. This is what developers do. It is possible to have fewer houses on high ground which could remove many of the problems for which compromises with planning guidelines and policies have been made on issues as well as flooding.

In 2000 the DETR issued a consultation document giving advice on floods. The definitive version has been delayed by a general election and departmental changes. It is promised to be robust and may be directorial. In the meantime, DETR say councils are obliged to treat advice as a material consideration on applications.

It has a "precautionary principle" on unpredictable floods and advice that housing in flood plains should only be permitted where defences are adequate or can be improved. A spokesman from Michael Shanly did not see a need for the application to be deferred. Could this be because there are no defences at the site and none can be provided because floodwater capacity must be maintained to avoid moving the flood risk elsewhere?

Cllr Jennings and others have a big responsibility and one could criticise officers for their report which recommends approval without highlighting issues which councillors should take into account in reaching their decision.

Roy Johnson

The Rosery

Bourne End