Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

No choices made

Question 42: Where should we site new development? Q42 response: The "Big Themes" are noted and are considered important but as discussed elsewhere the extent of the floodplain, the capacity of and adverse impacts upon receiving watercourses, the provision of viable and adequately funded water level and flood risk management facilities are equally as important and must be considered as the Local Plan progresses.

Priorities for both the Commissioners and associated Boards are, as follows: • To fund, maintain, protect and improve existing and make further provision of viable and appropriate water level and flood risk management infrastructure and systems to reduce the likelihood of harm to people and damage to the economy, environment and society. • The implementation and management including enforcement of water efficiency measures for residential, business and other users of potable water. • The retention and improvement of the rivers and waterways, their settings and associated corridors for navigation, environmental, leisure and tourism through the provision of related facilities. • To maintain, protect and improve the existing and make further provision of net gains to achieve environmental benefits to the waterways in the district. In summary the current consultation document appears to consider key issues such as climate change, and Biodiversity and green spaces which are important, but as commented upon on several occasions in this response it is most disappointing to note the absence of "water related" issues including water level and flood risk management, water efficiency and resources etc. Failure to do so could have consequences for those that reside, work or visit Greater Cambridge and these issues must be considered if the proposed growth targets are to be achieved. In addition to the matters raised, we would advise on the following, which may be beneficial to The Greater Cambridge Partnership in respect of related development control issues. (C) Other Issues (i) Consultation during the planning process Whilst the Commissioners and associated Boards no longer provide bespoke responses to the LPA (unless instructed to do so by the relevant Board or the applicant, if the application is subject to a Pre/Post-AppIication Consultation procedure, see section (C) (ii) below), it takes the opportunity and time to contribute to strategic planning documents, such as HELAA, Water Cycle Strategy etc; however it is disappointing to advise that our comments are often ignored. Whilst it is appreciated that there are other planning matters to be considered, experience elsewhere within our respective catchments has identified that the failure to fully consider our comments has led to poor solutions which have to be resolved at the ratepayers' expense. It is appreciated that this document is primarily planning related. However, it must be understood that whilst a planning application may be acceptable to your Council it also needs to be appropriate to other parties if the development is to be viable and buildable with the minimum of delay yet maximising our respective limited resources. Decision makers need to be held more accountable for their involvement in the water level management and flood risk element of a development. The inappropriate raising of a developer's expectations and chasing LPA housing numbers is considered to be the start of a poor surface water disposal solution which, if not considered at this stage, could increase flood risk. The Commissioners and associated Boards are no longer prepared to resolve, at their expense, problems created by others. (ii) Early engagement and better design of infrastructure In accordance with best practice the Commissioners and associated Boards promote early consultation on Masterplans/Development Briefs/planning applications, etc that meet any of the following criteria: • Being either within or adjacent to a Commissioners'/Boards' watercourse, and/or any other flood defence structure or asset. • Being within the channel of any other Ordinary Watercourse. • Where a direct discharge of surface, ground or treated foul effluent water is proposed. For any development affecting more than one watercourse and having possible strategic implications. • In an area of known actual flood risk or "wet spot". • Being within the maintenance access strips provided under the Byelaws. • Any other application that, in the opinion of the Middle Level Commissioners' Chief Engineer, has material drainage implications. The Commissioners offer several pre-application consultation procedures, as detailed on our "Pre& Post-application consultation procedures" document. However, in view of the sensitive nature of the local water level and flood risk management systems within the area the use of the detailed discussion procedure is considered essential. This procedure is intended to guide all parties from the initial concept stage to the approval of navigation, flood risk and water level management and relevant environmental issues prior to applications being submitted. Therefore, increasing the likelihood of meeting the Boards' minimum requirements, alleviating the need to oppose applications and discharge conditions and, ultimately, speeding up the associated processes and reducing costs. In certain situations, as listed above, the Boards will require that a Flood Risk and Drainage Impact Assessment (Flood Risk/Drajnage Strategy/Assessment), has been supplied as part of an application. The Assessment must meet the Boards' minimum requirements together with those of the NPPF, the District Council's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), relevant aspects of the Pitt Report, which requires all sources of flooding to be considered, and advise whether there is any material prejudice to the Boards' systems; local water level management system; water, natural or built environment. The Assessment must be supported by suitable adequate technical data and designs. Failure to do so could lead to the Boards opposing the application concerned. It would also be appropriate for applicants of smaller developments to consider and provide details of a drainage strategy as part of the basic submission. Ideally, it should be submitted and checked by the Boards prior to any application being made. Any resultant adverse impacts must be considered at the earliest possible stage. (iii) Statutory Powers The Board's primary powers are under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and its byelaws, policy statements and other relevant documentation but sections of the Water Industry Act 1991, the Highways Act 1980 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 also apply. The Boards' Drains are protected under their byelaws made under the Land Drainage Act. Consent for works within, under or over the protected watercourses and/or encroachment within the associated 9.0m wide maintenance access strip requires the Boards' prior written consent. In this respect, the Boards promote detailed pre-application consultation as this enables any issues to be dealt with prior to and not during the decision-making process. It should not be assumed that consent will be given by the Boards. Contravention of the Land Drainage Act, or any other Act, is a criminal offence which could lead to enforcement action being taken against the perpetrator. (iv) Hazard mapping and development within the floodplain The floodplain, its definition, derivation and extents have been an issue for IDBs since its introduction. This has become of more concern since the elevated importance of the Sequential Test in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The definition and extents of a "floodplain" are matters for the planning authority to resolve with the relevant authority who prepared the hazard map, be it the EA for its various flood maps, the LPA, for its SFRA, and/or the LLFA for its Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). It is acknowledged that whilst there may be specific issues relating to future proposed aspects of development within their catchment the Boards will not oppose it simply because it is within the floodplain. As you are aware, the main purpose of an IDB is to aim to manage flood risk up to an appropriate Standard of Protection (SOP). The Commissioners and associated Boards have policy statements available, which identify the SOP that they will seek to provide, floodplain or not. In addition, the Commissioners and associated Boards do not agree with the generic content of national policy, such as, the NPPF and argue that "The Fens" is a special case and should be considered as such. (v) River settings and corridors Whilst the Commissioners' system does not extend into the area covered by The Greater Cambridge Partnership they generally promote the use and enhancement of the local navigation system and are urging the relevant planning authorities to give serious consideration to enhance the setting, access, use and opportunities associated with the navigable rivers and associated river corridors that pass through their area and make a positive impact on the largely rural economy and promote the area as a tourist destination whenever possible, provided that they do not detrimentally affect statutory water level and flood risk management functions. (vi) Biodiversity and protected habitats and species/Green Infrastructure Whilst the Boards encourage the principle of increased ecological value and development of water level management and flood defences that provide for the creation of green infrastructure/habitat and recreation, the ability to maintain such systems for their intended use must also be considered. Experience has shown that biodiversity can be supported and improved within a regular framework of essential maintenance operations but care needs to be taken to ensure that a water level and flood risk management system does not suffer because of 'green' issues. An example of how these issues can affect what was originally intended as a flood defence, although on a much larger scale, is the Ouse Washes where concerns have been raised about the adverse impact on biodiversity due to flooding. The Boards have nature conservation duties under the Land Drainage Act 1991, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and are a competent authority under the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1995, therefore, any works affecting their systems, requiring their consent, or on any works that affect any on-site open watercourses will require an Environmental Statement and a Risk Impact Assessment. The Boards have adopted Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPS) as one of their policies and are committed to their implementation. The BAPS will help the Boards to maximise the biodiversity benefits of their activities and demonstrate their contribution to the Government's UK BAP targets. The plans will be reviewed periodically and updated as appropriate. Higher temperatures will result in increased evaporation of open water bodies leading to poor quality and will have an adverse impact on biodiversity. (vii) River Naturalisation Many of the rivers and most of the other watercourses within the area are not natural but manmade, primarily within the last 600 years. Most are open and not piped or culverted, or otherwise 'modified' and, with the exception of those within the towns or villages, not urbanised, therefore, we are uncertain as to what further re-naturalisation can be undertaken. It is accepted that these requirements do have a place, possibly on the Agency's watercourses, such as, the Ouse Washes system, but it must not be at the expense of making rivers unmaintainable or at increased flood risk. Failure to do so could have significant consequences, as has been seen elsewhere in the country in recent years. (viii) Open watercourses In order to prevent an increase in flood risk, by reducing available hydraulic and water storage capacities, restricted access for maintenance etc and to protect the natural environment, the piping and filling of open watercourses, except as may be necessary to create a means of access across a channel, is generally prohibited. (ix) Flood Risk & Water Level Management Flood Defences Whilst the Boards concerned have particular duties, as discussed elsewhere in this response, and will endeavour to achieve these in accordance with its policy statement, its powers are permissive and, ultimately, under "common law', landowners have the primary responsibility for draining their land, to ensure that they do not create a flood risk to others; managing the flood risk issues; and taking appropriate action to protect their property. NB. It should be appreciated that it is unlikely that the current level of government funding for water level and flood risk management projects will be available in the future. Therefore, it is likely that funding will be required from other stakeholders, potentially including your Council, if current SOP are to be maintained in the long term. Infiltration Devices Experience with the use of infiltration devices in the area has shown that any infiltration rates can be low and, therefore, on the whole they do not work efficiently unless there is a significant amount of space to install them. Unfortunately, housing density and Government targets do not allow sufficient space. In addition, very few people know how to correctly undertake a permeability test, provide the associated calculations and design the devices correctly. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) The Boards generally agree and acknowledge that SuDS are the preferred option in certain situations. However, they are not always the answer to the problem and not always the most suitable. Careful consideration needs to be given to the facility to be used, what is trying to be achieved and the nature of water level management in the area. Devices such as permeable paving and crate-based systems require valuable resources to be extracted from the ground, heat and energy to make the product and then for it to be transported hundreds of miles to site. Is this sustainable? Whilst SuDS can generally be incorporated into larger sites, it is often difficult and not viable to use them on smaller sites. A holistic approach will require considerable master planning, together with the resolution of funding and maintenance issues. Prior funding from an external source, say via the Community Infrastructure Levy, may be required if this is to work correctly. Given that your Council is within an area which is water stressed, it would be appropriate, where possible, to "think outside the box" and allow for SuDS devices to form part of a hydrological train where the retained water could be used for water harvesting, irrigation purposes etc. Treated effluent disposal/Dry weatherflows No reference is made to the adverse impact on flood risk and water quality from increased discharges from Water Recycling Centres (WRCs) or other sources of dry weather flow that is associated with increased "growth"! Water efficiency Within local strategic planning documents water resource issues predominantly refer solely to potable water supply but other water resource issues which exist within the study area, for example, agricultural use, navigation, amenity, biodiversity should also be considered, particularly if drought conditions, like those previously experienced, become more regular, and if the impact of climate change becomes a reality. The failure to consider this could have economic and environmental effects on the area. However, given the current financial climate and the view held by most developers that they already invest too much into their developments and will want the councils to contribute more, it is considered that funding from an external source will be required. In terms of fixtures and fittings, issues such as total water neutrality are not going to be achieved until all I old l fixtures and fittings are totally replaced by 'sustainable' fittings. To be fully accepted this policy really needs endorsement from Senior Council Members but they may be reluctant to do this if it restricts development in the area. (x) Rainwater harvesting/Recycling facilities The Boards promote the use of rainwater collection and grey water recycling, particularly if drought conditions become more regular and the impact of climate change becomes a reality, but consider that such systems should be in addition to but not replace or form any part of a surface water disposal system. Whilst it is accepted that during normal rainfall events the water recycling facility is likely to prove adequate, during the winter months there may be insufficient volume to store a design event. There are also concerns about the effects on the local systems if the facility is inoperative or during periods when the property is empty. In addition, it is also understood that the majority of tanks require a means of disposal when the units are being cleaned.