Policy NE8: Sustainable Drainage Systems

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1704

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Rachel Keen

Representation:

Needs to include reference to a long term management and maintenance plan to ensure SuDS are managed appropriately.

Full text:

Needs to include reference to a long term management and maintenance plan to ensure SuDS are managed appropriately.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3845

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Pigeon Land Ltd

Agent: Keymer Cavendish Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to NE8: Policy needs to acknowledge that development can achieve betterment

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4016

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Bedfordshire & River Ivel IDB

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to NE8: Policy should include strategic, integrated and maintainable SuDS for all sources of flood risk, not just surface water, solutions to be appropriate to the scale of development, IDB should be identified as consultee for applications

Full text:

The Bedfordshire and River Ivel Internal Drainage Board makes the following comments to your proposed Local Plan 2011 -2031 consultation.

The Plan does not adequately address Flood Risk and should be amended to strengthen the requirements of addressing flood risk and development, particularly in the north of the District in Letchworth and Baldock.

Below are some examples of paragraphs which should be redrafted to ensure development does not have a detrimental effect on flooding:

2.29 The Plan states fluvial flooding is not a huge issue. However, Stotfold and Arlesey have experienced significant flooding in the past both from the River Ivel and Pix Brook, which is exacerbated from the run off from Letchworth and Baldock.

2.78 The paragraph must include infrastructure that is required to accommodate growth as SuDS which are strategic, integrated and maintained. This is critical given the scale of development in Letchworth (900+ houses) and Baldock (2800 + houses).

3.6 The spatial vision of high quality sustainable design and managing flood risk needs to refer to the provision of strategic and integrated SuDS, which include effective and funded SuDS maintenance.

4.73 Policy SP7. This infrastructure should include SuDS and flood risk management, such that a public authority can ensure drainage infrastructure operates as designed in the future.

4.131 Policy SP11. It is inadequate to state that this Plan 'seeks'.... when other policy state 'will'. The Policy should state the Plan will deliver the provision of strategic and integrated SuDS that will be maintained.

4.136 For clarity, WFD seeks to meet good ecological "potential" for heavily modified and artificial water bodies, as well as good ecological "status" for natural water bodies.

4.137 The Plan states fluvial flooding is not a huge issue. However, Stotfold and Arlesey have experienced significant flooding in the past both from the River Ivel and Pix Brook, which is exacerbated from the run off from Letchworth and Baldock.

SP14. Downstream of Baldock is Stotfold which has experienced flooding from the River Ivel. This policy must accommodate for this development policy to provide strategic, integrated and maintainable SuDS to reduce catchment flood risk.

SP15. Downstream of Letchworth is Stotfold which has experienced significant flooding from the Pix Brook and the River Ivel. This policy must accommodate for this development policy to provide strategic, integrated and maintainable SuDS to reduce catchment flood risk.

NE7. There is a requirement to reduce the existing flood risk in Stotfold immediately downstream of the urban runoff areas of Letchworth and Baldock, as in SP14 and SP15, this Policy should be strengthened to include mitigation being designed and implemented on development sites to attenuate flows c) and d). It is fundamental that flood risk is minimised and that functional and effective infrastructure is provided that is maintainable in addition to items e).

NE8. This Policy should include strategic, integrated and maintainable SuDS for all sources of flood risk, and not just surface water, particularly given that flood risk exists from the Ivel and Pix Brook. The area is heavily modified with public storm sewers, modified watercourses and large flood attenuation reservoirs (Pix Brook), so any solution for development needs to be appropriate to the scale of development, rather than simply mimic the natural drainage pattern.

NE8 and 11.59. For developments draining in the Ivel and Pix Brook catchment, the Council and developers should also consult the IDB, as well as the Lead Local Flood Authority and the EA.

NE9. For any development in the Bedfordshire and River Ivel IDB district, a developer will be required to comply with the Board's Byelaws including maintaining a minimum 7 m wide undeveloped buffer zone for ordinary watercourses and applying the land drainage consenting regime.

I trust you find the Board's comments clear and informative.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4220

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Bloor Homes South Midlands

Agent: White Peak Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to NE8: Literal application of (a) requires living roofs on all development, (c) should include reference to feasibility and viability, (d) not justifiable

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5557

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: The Crown Estate

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to NE8: Criteria (a) and (c) effectively require living roofs on all development, criteria (d) not defined and unclear how to be applied in practice

Full text:

See attached

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 6073

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Representation:

Support NE8: Requirement to follow SuDs hierarchy

Full text:


Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan. The following response is submitted on behalf of Anglian Water.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received this response.

Policy SP7: Infrastructure requirements and developer contributions (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

Anglian Water is generally supportive of Policy SP7 as it states that planning permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that development proposals make provision for infrastructure that is necessary to accommodate the additional demands resulting from the development.

Policy SP9: Design and sustainability (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

It is noted that Policy SP9 includes a requirement for residential development to meet the optional water efficiency standard (110 litres per person per day). We would support the optional water efficiency standard being applied within the North Hertfordshire Local Plan area.

Policy SP11: Natural resources and sustainability (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

Policy SP11 includes a requirement to optimise the potential of the site to include the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) prior to planning permission being granted. We support this requirement as it is important to maximise the potential use of the SuDS to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of surface water and sewer flooding.

Policy SP15: Site LG1 - North of Letchworth Garden City (legally compliant - yes and sound - no)

Historically, sewage treatment assets have been sited at a distance from sensitive land uses, in recognition that these are an incompatible use. Our concern is to prevent the encroachment of Anglian Water's assets by sensitive development which could give rise to future amenity loss and impose additional constraints on the operation of our assets.

The above strategic site is located within close proximity to Letchworth Water Recycling Centre (formerly sewage treatment works) in the ownership of Anglian Water.

Nuisance may be caused by noise, lighting and traffic movements but its most prevalent source will be odours, unavoidably generated by the treatment of sewerage. Where it is proposed to allocate sites within close proximity of the water recycling centres there is a need to consider further the odour impact and the extent to which sensitive development (that which is regularly occupied by people) could be accommodated on the site without having an adverse impact on future residents and/or employees who will be based on the site.

It is therefore suggested that Policy SP15 should be include the following wording:

'Undertake a detailed odour assessment to demonstrate no adverse impact on future residents and occupants of non residential buildings. To provide evidence to demonstrate that a suitable distance is provided from Letchworth Garden City Water Recycling Centre and sensitive development (buildings which are regularly occupied) as part of the detailed masterplanning of the site.'

Burymead Road (sites HE2 and HB3) (legally compliant - yes and sound no (effective)

Historically, sewage treatment assets have been sited at a distance from sensitive land uses, in recognition that these are an incompatible use. Our concern is to prevent the encroachment of Anglian Water's assets by sensitive development which could give rise to future amenity loss and impose additional constraints on the operation of our assets.

The above sites are located within close proximity to Hitchin Water Recycling Centre (formerly sewage treatment works) in the ownership of Anglian Water.

Nuisance may be caused by noise, lighting and traffic movements but its most prevalent source will be odours, unavoidably generated by the treatment of sewerage. Where it is proposed to allocate sites within close proximity of the water recycling centres there is a need to consider further the odour impact and the extent to which sensitive development (that which is regularly occupied by people) could be accommodated on the site without having an adverse impact on future residents and/or employees who will be based on the site.

It is therefore suggested that Policy HE2 and HB3 should include the following additional wording:

'Undertake a detailed odour assessment to demonstrate no adverse impact on occupants of non residential buildings. To provide evidence to demonstrate that a suitable distance is provided from Hitchin Water Recycling Centre and sensitive development (buildings which are regularly occupied) as part of the detailed masterplanning of the site.'

RY4: Land north of Lindsay Close (legally compliant - yes and sound no (effective)

Historically, sewage treatment assets have been sited at a distance from sensitive land uses, in recognition that these are an incompatible use. Our concern is to prevent the encroachment of Anglian Water's assets by sensitive development which could give rise to future amenity loss and impose additional constraints on the operation of our assets.

The above strategic site is located within close proximity to Royston Water Recycling Centre (formerly sewage treatment works) in the ownership of Anglian Water.

Nuisance may be caused by noise, lighting and traffic movements but its most prevalent source will be odours, unavoidably generated by the treatment of sewerage. Where it is proposed to allocate sites within close proximity of the water recycling centres there is a need to consider further the odour impact and the extent to which sensitive development (that which is regularly occupied by people) could be accommodated on the site without having an adverse impact on future residents and/or employees who will be based on the site.

We note that Policy RY4 includes reference to the preparation of an odour assessment for the above site which is welcomed. However it is unclear how the findings of the odour assessment (once prepared) would be considered further as part of the planning application process.

It is therefore suggested that Policy RY4 should be include the following wording:

'Undertake a detailed assessment of the impact of the Royston Water Recycling Centre in relation to odours, lighting, noise and traffic impacts to demonstrate no adverse impact on future residents. To provide evidence to demonstrate that a suitable distance is provided from Royston City Water Recycling Centre and sensitive development (buildings that are regularly occupied) as part of the detailed masterplanning of the site.'

RY8: Land at Lumen Road, Royston (legally compliant - yes and sound no (justified and effective)

We closely monitor growth in our region and develop investment plans to reduce flow and load from the catchment or provide additional treatment capacity when appropriate. Reference is made to development of this allocation site being phased in relation to the improvements at Royston Sewage Treatment Works. It is unclear why this has been identified a specific requirement for this allocation site only and no other sites within the Royston catchment.

It is therefore suggested that the fifth bullet point of Policy RY8 should be deleted as follows:

Phasing of development to link with Sewage Treatment Works improvements;

Policy D1: Sustainable design (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

Policy D1 includes a requirement to optimise the potential of the site to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) prior to planning permission being granted. We support this requirement as it is important to maximise the potential use of the SuDS to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of surface water and sewer flooding.

It is also noted that Policy D1 includes a requirement for residential development to meet or exceed the optional water efficiency standard (110 litres per person per day). We would support the optional water efficiency standard being applied or exceeded within the North Hertfordshire Local Plan area.

Policy NE8: Sustainable drainage systems (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

We support the requirement that drainage solution follow the SuDs hierarchy as this will ensure that disposal of surface water to the public sewerage network will be only be considered where it is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives. This will help to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of surface water and sewer flooding.

Policy NE10 : Water Framework Directive and wastewater infrastructure (legally compliant - yes and sound - (justified and effective)

Reference is made to new or improved waste infrastructure being secured under the requirements of Policy SP7.

In general, water recycling centre (previously referred to as sewage or wastewater treatment works) upgrades where required to provide for additional growth are wholly funded by Anglian Water through our Asset Management Plan. Foul network improvements are generally funded/part funded through developer contribution via the relevant sections of the Water Industry Act 1991. The foul infrastructure requirements will be dependant on the location, size and phasing of the development. All sites will require a local connection to the existing sewerage network which may include network upgrades.

As set above we seek contributions directly from developers in accordance with the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. Therefore Anglian Water would not expect there to be provision within planning obligations sought by the District Council or Community Infrastructure Levy in accordance with planning legislation.

The majority of allocations sites proposed within the Anglian Water region are expected to require improvements to the foul sewerage network. Please see enclosed spreadsheet for further information. It is important to note that the impact on the foul sewerage network and relevant water recycling centres have been assessed on an individual site basis.

Therefore we would suggest Policy NE10 should be amended to make it clear that applicants will be expected to demonstrate that there is capacity within foul sewerage network and at the relevant water recycling centre or that capacity can be made available in time to serve the development.

It is therefore suggested that Policy NE10 be amended as follows:

'Mechanisms for delivering any necessary new or improved water and wastewater infrastructure are secured under the requirements of Policy SP7. Adequate foul water treatment and disposal already exists or can be provided in time to serve the development.'

Attendance at examination

Where we have sought modifications to the wording of proposed Local Plan policies as set out above we would wish to participate at the examination.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 6129

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Rumball Sedgwick

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to NE8: Adds nothing local to policy set out in the NPPF

Full text:

See attached