DM7 - Water resources and Flood Risk

Comment

Representation ID: 595

Received: 25/03/2022

Respondent: Coddington Parish Council

Opening sentence; Proposals should include measures to enhance water quality.

Comment

Representation ID: 621

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Graeme Foster

Policy DM7 reflects the NPPF and is supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 710

Received: 07/04/2022

Respondent: Via East Midlands

Paragraph 8.96 – add the following: -

‘Examples of SUDs include permeable pavements, rain gardens, bioretention basins, green roofs and swales ‘

Comment

Representation ID: 729

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Historic England (Midlands)

Policy DM7 Flood risk and water resources
As referenced above within Policy SP5 we would welcome recognition of the potential for changes to the watercourse and treatment for flooding and water courses, also need to consider how they may impact upon the historic environment, with particular attention to below ground archaeology. A reference within the justification text is likely to be suitable.

Comment

Representation ID: 781

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Via East Midlands

In respect of 'Contaminated Land'.
Section D7 of the plan covers the importance of protecting groundwater resources from contamination. This is particularly relevant to the selection of suitable sites for non-inert landfill. I do not have any comments on this as the guidance is clear that the risks will be assessed on a site-specific basis, prior to approval of any new development.
Although protection of high-quality agricultural land and soil is noted in section DM2, soil resources are not included in any of the following sections. Does this need to be considered for more detailed inclusion in the plan? See for example Defra’s Safeguarding Our Soils – a Strategy for England.

Comment

Representation ID: 801

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

DM7
We also support policy DM2 – Health, Wellbeing and Amenity, policy DM3 – Design of New and
Extended Waste Management Facilities, policy DM4 – Landscape Protection, policy DM5 – Protecting and Enhancing Biodiversity, policy DM6 – Historic Environment, policy DM7 ‐ Water resources and Flood Risk, policy DM8 – Public Access, policy DM10 – Cumulative Impacts of Development, policy DM11 – Airfield Safeguarding, and policy DM12 ‐ Highway Safety and Vehicle Movements/Routeing.

Comment

Representation ID: 838

Received: 27/04/2022

Respondent: The Environment Agency

DM7 – Water resources and Flood Risk
We welcome the inclusion of this section and policy. Where applicable, we advise that pre-planning application advice is sort from the Environment Agency.

Comment

Representation ID: 839

Received: 27/04/2022

Respondent: The Environment Agency

Para 8.82
We particularly welcome this paragraph.

Comment

Representation ID: 840

Received: 27/04/2022

Respondent: The Environment Agency

Para 8.83
Whilst we appreciate the sentiment of the 1st sentence of this paragraph, we would question whether, with regards to the role of the Environment Agency, the phrase “it is responsible for improving and protecting…” is appropriate. Ultimately it will be the responsibility of developers/operators of sites to ensure that the aspects listed here are adequately met.

Comment

Representation ID: 841

Received: 27/04/2022

Respondent: The Environment Agency

Para 8.87
We welcome the direction that the Environment Agency should be consulted to help identify appropriate and adequate mitigation measures with regards to ground and surface water resources. It should be noted however that in some instances the guidance of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) or LPA, may be required with respect to the provision of an adequate surface water drainage strategy for some waste development sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 842

Received: 27/04/2022

Respondent: The Environment Agency

Para 8.96 (SuDS)
Whilst the draft plan (para 8.96 in particular, but also elsewhere) recognises the importance of the inclusion of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for the management of surface water, this needs careful consideration, balancing the need for natural filtration and treatment of potentially contaminated surface water without causing pollution to underlying aquifers. Proposed SuDS should include a robust and proactive maintenance plan to ensure they remain functional for their lifetime. Whilst these measures are primarily focussed on water quality, effective, well-designed SuDS will have secondary flood risk and amenity benefits.