Comment

Representation ID: 91

Received: 13/06/2007

Respondent: Environment Agency

As stated above, for all allocations it must be demonstrated that the PPS25 Sequential Test (and the Exception test where required) has been applied. Clearly the TGSE SFRA will have a key role in this process, and we are able to advise. In all respects, the approach taken must be robust and transparent.

The approach taken appears likely to be acceptable from a flood risk viewpoint. The top tier settlements all do contain areas of Flood Zone 3 (High Risk), but the majority is Flood Zone 1 (Low Risk). Of the second tier settlements, Canewdon is all FZ1, Hullbridge has a small part of FZ3, while Gt Wakering is approximately 40% FZ3. All appear capable of accommodating the required growth in FZ1, but this must be tested.

For sites in the other settlements, the PPS25 Sequential Test must still be applied.

Biodiversity is also correctly highlighted as a key issue. There will potentially be a large number of brownfield sites, which can also have significant biodiversity value, and this must be taken into consideration.

We support the approach taken in paragraph 4.6.2. It is essential that land affected by biodiversity issues or at risk of flooding is avoided when allocating sites for development.