Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Comment

Representation ID: 22213

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Many other sites intersect water courses (e.g. GNLP0264, GNLP3024, and GNLP0132), they should undertake a WFD compliance assessment for the watercourse receiving the runoff, maintain a buffer of 20 m between the watercourse and gardens and secure opportunities for riparian habitat restoration.

Comment

Representation ID: 22214

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Many other sites intersect water courses (e.g. GNLP0264, GNLP3024, and GNLP0132), they should undertake a WFD compliance assessment for the watercourse receiving the runoff, maintain a buffer of 20 m between the watercourse and gardens and secure opportunities for riparian habitat restoration.

Comment

Representation ID: 22215

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

The site GNLP0307 is adjacent to a stream with a significant section of culverted watercourse (1.2 km in total). We would support opening up this stream again as well as any contribution towards enhancing the natural habitats of the Yare Valley."

Comment

Representation ID: 22216

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Freethrope WRC is currently flow non-compliant. However, we have received an application to increase the dry Weather Flow of the sewage works, which should bring it compliant with the permit. There should be no development until the capacity has been upgraded.

Comment

Representation ID: 22217

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

There is not enough capacity in current permit at Aylsham WRC to accommodate this development and there are no plans for capacity upgrades in terms of flow in PR19. There are only plans to increase storage at intermittent CSOs. Development at this site will require phasing in line with upgrades to WRC and we will expect to see evidence of liaison with Anglian Water Services regarding this.

Comment

Representation ID: 22218

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

There is not enough capacity in current permit at Aylsham WRC to accommodate this development and there are no plans for capacity upgrades in terms of flow in PR19. There are only plans to increase storage at intermittent CSOs. Development at this site will require phasing in line with upgrades to WRC and we will expect to see evidence of liaison with Anglian Water Services regarding this.

GNLP0336
The northern quarter of the site adjacent to the river lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3, both now and with the addition of climate change. The development should be sequentially sited in future Flood Zone 1 wherever possible, to leave the flood zones as open land and able to accept flood water. The floodplain should be preserved as open space and opportunities should be sought to enhance the river corridor and natural environment here. Our access to the watercourse for maintenance purposes must not be impeded.
If development is required to be sited within these present or future Flood Zone 3 (1% annual probability with 35% climate change) and Flood Zone 2 (0.1% annual probability with 35% climate change) flood outlines then the more vulnerable development, and ideally the less vulnerable development too, will need to be designed with floor levels raised 0.3m above the flood levels for the future 1% (1 in 100) annual probability flood event with 35% and ideally 65% allowances for climate change. Refuge will also need to be provided above the 0.1% (1 in 1000) annual probability 25% climate change flood levels. Compensatory flood storage will also need to be provided for any built development or land raising within the 1% (1 in 100) annual probability flood outline with 35% climate change to ensure no increase in flood risk elsewhere. This will require lowering of higher land in Flood Zone 1 to the south to provide the compensatory flood storage.

Comment

Representation ID: 22219

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

There is not enough capacity in current permit at Aylsham WRC to accommodate this development and there are no plans for capacity upgrades in terms of flow in PR19. There are only plans to increase storage at intermittent CSOs. Development at this site will require phasing in line with upgrades to WRC and we will expect to see evidence of liaison with Anglian Water Services regarding this.

Comment

Representation ID: 22220

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

There is not enough capacity in current permit at Aylsham WRC to accommodate this development and there are no plans for capacity upgrades in terms of flow in PR19. There are only plans to increase storage at intermittent CSOs. Development at this site will require phasing in line with upgrades to WRC and we will expect to see evidence of liaison with Anglian Water Services regarding this.

Comment

Representation ID: 22221

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

There is not enough capacity in current permit at Aylsham WRC to accommodate this development and there are no plans for capacity upgrades in terms of flow in PR19. There are only plans to increase storage at intermittent CSOs. Development at this site will require phasing in line with upgrades to WRC and we will expect to see evidence of liaison with Anglian Water Services regarding this.

Comment

Representation ID: 22222

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

The areas adjacent to the river of this site allocation are Flood Zone 3, and our modelling shows that the majority of these areas are also Flood Zone 3b Functional Floodplain, with an annual probability of flooding of 5% (1 in 20) and classed as ‘land where water needs to flow and be stored in times of flood’. As a country park would be classed as ‘water compatible’ development under ‘Amenity open space, nature conservation and biodiversity’ then this would be an acceptable land use within the flood zones, including Flood Zone 3b, providing that it is designed to: ‘remain operational and safe for users in times of flood; result in no net loss of floodplain storage; and not impede water flows and not increase flood risk elsewhere’. Therefore it would be preferable if any associated built development is located within Flood Zone 1, and all development within the flood zones meets the above requirements.