Draft Black Country Plan

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: 23175

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Figure 10- Environment Key Diagram should be amended to include key rivers and/or floodplains and buffer for habitat function.

Comment

Representation ID: 23176

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) systems can be used for heating or cooling and are, in principle, energy and CO2 efficient. However, unless they are managed carefully there is the potential that the ground and groundwater can eventually warm or cool to a point where the system cannot continue to operate efficiently, or at all. Adjacent systems may also interfere with each other. The system operator should also consider
potential for loss or damage to third parties. The following key issues should be taken into consideration:

• Risk of the pipes or borehole(s) creating undesirable connections between rock or soil layers. This may cause pollution and/or changes in groundwater flow and/or quality.
• Undesirable/unsustainable temperature changes in the aquifer or dependent surface waters.
• Pollution of water from leaks of polluting chemicals contained in closed loop systems.
• Pollution of water from heat pump discharge from an open loop system that contains additive chemicals.
• Impacts of re-injection of water from an open loop system into the same aquifer, both hydraulic and thermal, as well as any water quality changes induced.
• The potential impact of groundwater abstraction for ground source heat systems on other users of groundwater or surface water.

We expect developers to undertake appropriate prior investigations for these systems. This should include environmental risk assessment and method statements for the construction and operation of the systems. These may be provided as part of the planning process.

Any proposals for renewable and low carbon energy generation may be subject to the requirement of the Environmental Permitting Regulations and therefore require an environmental permit under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016, from the Environment Agency, unless an exemption applies. For such proposals we recommend that the Environment Agency is contacted for further advice and to discuss the issues likely to be raised.

Surface water heat pumps may also require permits from the Environment Agency. A national code of practice has been published by the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). The Code sets minimum requirements and recommends best practice, allowing developers to include it as part of the tendering/contract process for a project. The work has been supported by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, with the Environment Agency as an active member of the project steering group. The Code is available to purchase through CIBSE but you can read more about it in their summary leaflet here: leaflet

More information on the permits required from the Environment Agency for both ground source and surface water source systems is available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-loop-heat-pump-systems-permits-consents-and- licences

12.48 - Any proposals for coal bed methane exploration will need to be considered for a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016, from the Environment Agency, unless an exemption applies. For such proposals we recommend that the Environment Agency is contacted for further advice and to discuss the issues likely to be raised.

Comment

Representation ID: 23177

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Water Cycle Study: Phase 1 Scoping Study (May 2020)
At the time of preparing this Phase 1 Scoping Study proposed site allocations were not available so the WCS evidence at this point is high level only. No limitations on the provision of water supply infrastructure were identified by STW or SSW. The WCS states that once proposed Black Country Plan allocations are available, the total forecast growth should be compared to water company plans to ensure sufficient water resource available.
Development in areas where there is limited wastewater network capacity will increase pressure on the network, increasing the risk of a detrimental impact on existing customers, and increasing the likelihood of CSO operation. Is it essential therefore that in addition to the strategic proposals linking in with the sewerage provider, the plan and its policies ensures that developers have early engagement with Severn Trent Water Ltd.

The WCS states that across the sewer catchments that cover the study area there is hydraulic capacity for an equivalent of 260,000 new houses. However, much of this capacity is within the Minworth / Ray Hall catchments that also serves much of Birmingham’s growth over than period. As such a strategic assessment of proposed growth levels will be required as Birmingham’s plan comes in for review with further assessment of infrastructure improvements which will be required to be undertaken by the sewerage provider to support the proposed levels of growth and specific allocations. This additional work should be fed into the IDP (which currently includes no detail relating to such matters) and appropriate policies will be required to ensure that development is phased accordingly with any required infrastructure works in order to ensure no pollution of the water environment occurs as a result of untimely development putting undue pressure of existing systems.

The work undertaken in relation to water quality at this point is particularly lacking in the policy section. We look to the Phase 2 WCS work to provide assessment to help address this. The Phase 2 WCS should also include data that addresses issues raised by the Environment Agency in relation to the Draft Outline WCS last year which do not appear to have been reflected in the published draft (see Appendix 1).

The WCS should include a WFD impact assessment to inform water quality policies within the plan which are currently absent or lacking. As discussed in our informal
advice provided previous to this consultation, we would also expect the plan to include a more general River Basin Management Plan policy linked to the WCS evidence and pulling together all the water environment constraints and opportunities that the plan will need to take into consideration. Potential wordings for such a policy have been provided previously.

The following points are to be noted in undertaking this updated and more detailed
WCS work:

4.2 Resource Availability Assessment: since the WCS was written, the Staffs Trent Valley Abstraction Licensing strategy (ALS) has been updated and the Tame, Anker & Mease ALS will be updated in the next few months, followed by the Worcs Middle Severn ALS update. Any subsequent WCS should take these updates into consideration.

4.4.1 Water Stress: When the WCS was written, the water companies were classed as being in areas of ‘moderate‘ water stress. In July 2021, following a consultation exercise, the Secretary of State has determined that both Severn Trent Water (except their Chester zone) and South Staffs Water are now considered to be in areas of ‘serious water stress’ for the purposes of water resources planning. The consultation response document dated 1 July 21 response contains this:

The government is currently considering its approach to building standards and how to enable greater water efficiency in new developments and retrofits. Local authorities can use the water stress
determination to inform whether they can require the tighter standard of
110 litres of water per head per day in new developments. Otherwise the use of the water stress determination is only to allow water companies to consider compulsory metering in their water resources management plans. It should not be used for other purposes such as development planning or water resources planning.