Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Search representations
Results for Environment Agency search
New searchSupport
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV1 Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Landscape and Habitats - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3968
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We are pleased to see mention made of your intention to support the Crouch and Roach Management Plan in this policy.
Please note that the core strategy should also be seeking to enhance biodiversity through development in accordance with PPS1 and PPS9. This will involve retaining existing natural features within any development and seeking opportunities to create new habitats and link in with existing adjacent habitats. The Essex Biodiversity Project has produced an informative guide called: 'Integrating Biodiversity into development...realising the benefits'. This is available on their website: www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk.
We are pleased to see mention made of your intention to support the Crouch and Roach Management Plan in this policy.
Please note that the core strategy should also be seeking to enhance biodiversity through development in accordance with PPS1 and PPS9. This will involve retaining existing natural features within any development and seeking opportunities to create new habitats and link in with existing adjacent habitats. The Essex Biodiversity Project has produced an informative guide called: 'Integrating Biodiversity into development...realising the benefits'. This is available on their website: www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV2 Coastal Protection Belt - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3970
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We support this policy option
We support this policy option
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV3 Flood Risk - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3972
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We support this policy but would suggest that some additonal wording is added:
It needs to be clearly stated that all developments occurring within a flood zone will need to be accompanied by a PPS25 compliant FRA - not all applications can be covered under the Sequential Test and Exception Test.
We support this policy but would suggest that some additonal wording is added:
It needs to be clearly stated that all developments occurring within a flood zone will need to be accompanied by a PPS25 compliant FRA - not all applications can be covered under the Sequential Test and Exception Test.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV3 Flood Risk - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3974
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
Also, we would like to see "We will continue to work with the EA manage flood risk in a sustainable manner through capitalising on opportunities to make space for water wherever possible and through the continued provision of flood defences where necessary."
This is a key message coming out of the Thames Estuary 2100 Project group and, while you do not fall within the study boundary, including this in your policy would ensure consistency throughout the Thames Gateway area.
Also, we would like to see "We will continue to work with the EA manage flood risk in a sustainable manner through capitalising on opportunities to make space for water wherever possible and through the continued provision of flood defences where necessary."
This is a key message coming out of the Thames Estuary 2100 Project group and, while you do not fall within the study boundary, including this in your policy would ensure consistency throughout the Thames Gateway area.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV4 Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3976
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We support this approach as it is consistent with national planning policy.
We support this approach as it is consistent with national planning policy.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV8 Code for Sustainable Homes - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3983
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We generally support this approach as it is consistent with the approach that we take in other local authority areas in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. We support the idea of a stepped approach but would ask you to consider revising this in line with central Government objectives as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". The proposed standards are higher than those suggested by Government so you will need to be certain that they are achievable within the time frame.
We generally support this approach as it is consistent with the approach that we take in other local authority areas in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. We support the idea of a stepped approach but would ask you to consider revising this in line with central Government objectives as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". The proposed standards are higher than those suggested by Government so you will need to be certain that they are achievable within the time frame.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV9 BREEAM - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3985
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We support the inclusion of this policy
We support the inclusion of this policy
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV10 Contaminated Land - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3986
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We support the inclusion of this policy as it is consistent with national planning policy.
We support the inclusion of this policy as it is consistent with national planning policy.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
CLT1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3987
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We would suggest that flood risk should be included in this policy. Where planned development is only deliverable due to the presence of flood defences, it is not unreasonable to request that the developer contributes to the continued provision and maintenance of those defences - especially where any larger developments are concerned.
We would suggest that flood risk should be included in this policy. Where planned development is only deliverable due to the presence of flood defences, it is not unreasonable to request that the developer contributes to the continued provision and maintenance of those defences - especially where any larger developments are concerned.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
URV1 Upper Roach Valley - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3988
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
We generally support the inclusion of this policy. We would suggest that "Opportunities to reduce flood risk and enhance natural habitats by making space for water will be indentified." Again, this will show consistency with our message for other Thames Gateway areas.
We generally support the inclusion of this policy. We would suggest that "Opportunities to reduce flood risk and enhance natural habitats by making space for water will be indentified." Again, this will show consistency with our message for other Thames Gateway areas.
