Policy CC5 – Flood Risk

Comment

Representation ID: 10749

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Platt

Flooding, building on green belt in Newtown/Bloxwich and South Staffs in general is taking away our drainage fields. The North Walsall cemetery is heartbreaking as most of the baby and adult graves have flooded as more development and concrete covers our pastures.

My garden floods with the fields already so covering even more green belt with concrete the water will have no other route but to engulf what is around it, our properties.

Comment

Representation ID: 11107

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Martin

I am submitting an objection to the building of houses in this area of Bushbury. Apart from it being green belt on the counties' border and of local interest, the erection of these houses will take away the natural flood plain, as it did when the houses on the Moseley Estate were built. Storm water and foul drainage causes a build up of excess water in Primrose Avenue where houses have been flooded 6 times in the past 15 years. The houses will drain to Waterhead Brook and cause storm water build up in this area. less

Comment

Representation ID: 11116

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Diane Locke

I can't believe this is being allowed to happen to trees, wildlife and nature when we need it the most. Without trees and nature are we not affecting the flood defences as well. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Support

Representation ID: 11544

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Hawbush Community Gardens

Pleased to see the recognition of the importance of planning taking account of regional and local flooding risk. These concerns relate to the lack of a holistic approach to water catchment management. This does now seem to be understood in the rural/agricultural context but maybe less so in urban areas. Managing the soil so that water is allowed to percolate below the surface and hence stored before drainage/runoff. Housing projects should include an element of soil management to this end - the tendency for homes to pave large areas to the exclusion of "gardens" should be discouraged or CONTROLLED!

Support

Representation ID: 12046

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Thompson

Developments should, where possible, naturalise urban watercourses and open up underground culverts, to provide biodiversity net gain as well as amenity improvement. I support that there should be no built development within five metres of an ordinary watercourse and ten metres of the top of the bank of a main river, these buffers should be given as minimums allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Developers should be expected to provide buffers
which protect and, where relevant, increase the extent of the natural environment adjoining the
watercourse.

Comment

Representation ID: 12588

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Samantha Owen

I have seen the arboretum flooded on a number of occasions, surely a development here will exasperate this issue

Comment

Representation ID: 12624

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr William Cowley

I am objecting to the use of Greenfield sites for this house building project the reasons for not using Green land or obvious and many ie loss of farmland destruction of natural habitat increased flood risk and environmental degradation

Comment

Representation ID: 13009

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Phillip Tapper

In addition from knowledge of living and working in the area [of Sutton Road] for 20 years, many parts of the site are prone to flooding regularly and are unsuitable for development. The proposal should be altered to exclude these sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 13015

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Baggott

Concerns about flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 13730

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Jodie Hannon

It will create larger risks of more flooding at a severe rate, traffic is already chaotic as it is & this will only add to it!

Object

Representation ID: 13800

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr B Tolley

Flooding in areas now

Object

Representation ID: 20987

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.26 - "The policy needs to be clearer and that the sequential test referred to in Criterion 2 only applies to the specific circumstances set out in the NPPF."

Comment

Representation ID: 21275

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy CC5 – Flood Risk
We support the allocation of Site WSA2. The south western corner of the site is included within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Further technical work will be undertaken in dialogue with Walsall Council to demonstrate that built development can be suitably delivered on the site without increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

Comment

Representation ID: 22078

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Flood Risk and Water Quality:
• We welcome the revised policy CC6 Sustainable drainage and surface water management to protect the
blue infrastructure of the plan area and wider water catchment including the river Stour and its tributaries.

Support

Representation ID: 22251

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

12
Support: WTBBC support that developments should, where possible, naturalise urban watercourses (by reinstating a natural, sinuous river channel and restoring the functional floodplain) and open up underground culverts, to provide biodiversity net gain as well as amenity improvements.

Comment

Representation ID: 22252

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

15
Comment: Whilst WTBBC support that there should be no built development within five metres of an ordinary watercourse and ten metres of the top of the bank of a main river, these buffers should be given as minimums allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Developers should be expected to provide buffers which protect and, where relevant, increase the extent of the natural environment adjoining the watercourse. Furthermore, whilst WTBBC support the enabling of the preservation of the watercourse corridor, public access and new and improved greenways should also be given as a desired outcome, with links to policies CSP4 and ENV8 made.

Support

Representation ID: 22289

Received: 21/01/2022

Respondent: Miss Jodi Stokes

Flood Risk

9.8 Draft Policy CC5 (Flood Risk) states that the Black Country Authorities will seek to minimise the probability and consequences of flooding by adopting a strong risk-based approach to site allocations and the granting of planning permission, in line with the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 23092

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

It is important to ensure that policy CC5 is effective in minimising the probability and consequences of flooding from all sources, in accordance with the NPPF. Whilst f
some points of this policy, we suggest that part 1 The BCA will seek
to minimise the probability and consequences of flooding from all sources is referred to within some points of this policy, we suggest that part 1 of the should be amended to state 'The BCA will seek to minimise the probability and consequences of flooding FROM ALL SOURCES by...' (and the amendments that we suggest to CC1) would help to ensure that the requirement is clear from the outset.

The Trust owns and manages reservoirs within the Black Country. Building properties in the inundation zone of a dam could adversely alter the risk assessment for the reservoir which may require additional works to be carried out at the expense of the applicant/developer, to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Whilst the likelihood of reservoir failure may be considered low, the consequences of such a failure can be significant. The failure of a reservoir has the potential to cause catastrophic damage due to the sudden release of large volumes of water. This change in risk cannot be properly quantified and assessed without detailed information and may require updated breach models, funded by the developer, to compare the current and proposed consequences of a dam failure. The outcome of this modelling should then form a key part of the Flood Risk Assessment for the site and will aid in determining whether mitigation measures either on or off-site can alleviate flood risk concerns and make the development compliant with national planning policy. This work would be necessary for the Trust to determine whether the applicant / developer will need to fund any work at a reservoir to mitigate increased risk. It should however be recognised that it is highly unlikely to be able to remove the risk entirely.

Developers need to be aware that sluices and weirs that CRT use to remove excess water from canal infrastructure may run in culvert under their site - even some distance from the canal. The same applies for feeders. Feeder abstraction points will soon be under licence conditions so any development near a point on a watercourse where the Trust abstracts must not alter the current set up.

Comment

Representation ID: 23167

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

11) Flood Risk Groundwater Source Protection Zones: Although we welcome the inclusion of this point, this should not sit within flood risk policy CC5 as it is not do with flood risk. In light of our comments in relation to the water cycle study, foul drainage and river basin management planning we recommend an additional policy is added which addresses the protection of water quality and the wider water environment, sitting aside from flood risk, climate change and biodiversity-specific issues. This policy requirement would sit better within such a policy body.

Our groundwater protection guidance documents state that in SPZ1 and SPZ2, the Environment Agency will only agree to proposals for infrastructure developments of non-national significance where they do not have the potential to cause pollution or harmful disturbance to groundwater flow or where these risks can be reduced to an acceptable level via Environmental Permitting Regulations if applicable.

Where a new infrastructure development presents a significant risk to groundwater, the Environment Agency may require a programme of groundwater monitoring to be designed, agreed, installed and undertaken to give early warning of any developing groundwater pollution and/or interference to groundwater flow. This programme may include off-site locations if necessary to identify pollution and to allow monitoring in the event that the site becomes inaccessible. Where appropriate, the Environment Agency will use its powers to require this at existing sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 23168

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

12) This section should highlight the relevant River Basin Management Plans which provide additional detail on the de-culverting and the creation of naturalised watercourses.

Comment

Representation ID: 23169

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

14) This should be expanded to read to link into the requirements under point 15.
‘Development should not take place over culverted watercourses and a suitable easement should be provided from the outside edge of the culvert’

Comment

Representation ID: 23171

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

15) We welcome this policy as it goes beyond the Environment Agency’s statutory remit in permitting development along watercourses which only requires an 8m easement along Main Rivers for flood risk maintenance and access purposes.

Supporting text should include reference to the Main Rivers to support the general statement of 10m easement from main rivers. The main rivers in the area include: Brandhall Brook, Coalbourne Brook, Cow - York Road Brook, Darlaston Brook, Dawley Brook, Ford Brook, Groveland Brook, Hamstead Road Brook, Hobnail Brook, Illey Brook, Lutley Brook, Mousesweet Brook, River Stour, Smestow Brook, Swan Brook, Tame (River), Tame Tunnel (Wolverhampton Arm), Tipton Brook, Waddems and Bentley Flood Relief Culvert, Whiteheath Brook and the Wordsley Brook.

Comment

Representation ID: 23172

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Point 9c) States that a FRA will be required for minerals or waste development. As this is not a requirement of the NPPF we query the reason for including this, and the evidence base to support its inclusion. The Environment Agency would not look to
review such information under our role as a statutory consultee and as such would likely fall to the LLFA to undertake such review. Such sites would be regulated under the Environmental Permitting Regulations with a mind to preventing pollution. Surface drainage is addressed within these permits. Any such FRA would need to take this into account and ensure any consideration of drainage issues are complementary and no duplication of the planning and permitting regime occurs.

Comment

Representation ID: 23173

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

17) We strongly recommend the addition of the following element to this point to which supports sustainable development

‘Land that is required for current and future flood management will be safeguarded from development. Where development lies adjacent to or benefits from an existing or future flood defence scheme the developer will be expected to contribute towards the cost of delivery and/or maintenance of that scheme’.

We strongly support this part of the policy and welcome the provision of safeguarding land for flood risk management. This approach is in line with planning policy guidance which states ‘If an area is intended to flood, e.g. an upstream flood storage area designed to protect communities further downstream, then this should be safeguarded from development and identified as functional floodplain, even though it might not flood very often’.

Comment

Representation ID: 23174

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

This policy should take into account the latest climate change allowances are available on the following website: https:// www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate- change-allowances. Please note the guidance has recently been updated to give more local climate change figures.

This policy should reference the latest Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to take account updates to this assessment to ensure that developments are using the latest assessments of flood risk in the area.

We strongly support a catchment approach to flood risk and water management and the promotion of Nature Based Solutions to provide wider environmental and community benefits both on site, off site and on a strategic level.

Comment

Representation ID: 23239

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament

Equally, across my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency, we have witnessed in recent years an increase in the amount of flooding that has taken place in areas where the Black Country Plan has proposed a large number of these new properties. Areas such as Wolverhampton Road and Aldridge Road/Queslett Road East sites have had repeated instances of flooding in recent years including the flooding of homes.
To remove even more natural soakaway in several of these areas would have a detrimental effect on existing residents. This should not be overlooked at the initial stages of site allocation/preference in this Plan as it should include work on the existing drains and sewers too.

Comment

Representation ID: 23527

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Solutions should be sought where flooding affects heritage assets and the wider historic landscape. Any measures identified must be appropriate and sensitive to the significance of heritage assets and their setting.

Object

Representation ID: 43885

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.38 Policy CC5 deals with flood risk, of which Criterion 2 indicates that the sequential test will be applied to all developments to ensure that it takes place in areas with the lowest flood risk. This does not accord with the NPPF or PPG, which only requires a flood risk assessment to be provided in respect of major developments or developments within areas of defined flood risk. The Policy needs to be clearer and that the sequential test referred to in Criterion 2 only applies to the specific circumstances set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 167 of the NPPF is clear that only certain applications will be subject to site specific flood risk assessments and this in turn can lead to the application of the sequential test for flood risk. The Policy should reflect this.

Support

Representation ID: 44908

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support the recognition of potential cross boundary impacts and the approach at
paragraph 17)

Comment

Representation ID: 46200

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Draft policy CC5 should be clear on what basis the proposed distance limitations on development proximate to an ordinary watercourse are derived, a detailed justification for the proposed limitations and how the policy text as drafted relates to any local byelaws set under the Land Drainage Act 1991.