Martin L wrote: > Without defending LANT's choice of design, a change from the > the previous style has been forced on them by the need to > raise the floor level a few feet to avoid the risk of it > being flooded out again. Simply keeping the same A-frame > shape but with higher floors would reduce the usable floor > space by too much.
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to provide a new building of the same general size and shape as the existing, but raised up higher. This will mean that the base of the A-frames is wider than before, and that the ridge height is raised by the same amount as the floor level. There would also need to be some changes to the access arrangements from ground level - but these would be needed with any raised-floor solution. Incidentally, the "Flood Risk Statement" attached to the application states that the floor level is to be raised from the 1 in 100 year flood level, to above the 1 in 150 year flood level, but nowhere does the application state what these levels are. The elevations drawing shows before and after views, but the drawing is so basic that it is not very clear where the floor levels are, but I estimate the new floor to be about 0.75m (or 2 ft 6 in) higher than the existing. Incidentally, for sites where there is a risk of flooding, planning authorities normally require a detailed Flood Risk Assessment, which would refer to historical flood data and other relevant EA information, set out the impact of flooding on the development, and any impact of the development on flooding - not an issue here since the building is on stilts - and hence give reasons for the proposed floor level etc. Since none of this is provided here for an obviously high risk site, there must be a reasonable chance that the planning officers will rule that the application is deficient, and cannot be processed. David Mack
