Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Search representations
Results for Environment Agency search
New search New searchComment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options, or combination of options for Site A do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16972
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options, or combination of options for Site B do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16973
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options for Site C do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16974
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options for Site D do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16975
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options for Site E do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16976
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options for Site F do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16977
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of options for Site G do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16978
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options for Site H do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16979
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options for Site J do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16980
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Comment
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options
Which of the options for Site K do you prefer?
Representation ID: 16981
Received: 27/11/2009
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.
The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.
Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.
We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.
Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square
Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street
Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site C Option - Western End of West Street
The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.
Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.
The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.
Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road
Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre
Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.
Site F Option - Bradley Way
The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:
Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.
Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.
Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.
Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park
The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.
The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.
Site H Option - Rear of South Street
Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site J Option - Hospital Parking
Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park
Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.
We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.
Summary
We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.
If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.
Other Discussion Points:
Site Substitution
In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.
We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.
Density of Development
To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.
The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.
In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.
Form and Structure
Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.
The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.
Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.
Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.
Contamination
Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.
As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.
If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.
Sustainability
With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.
Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.
Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.
Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
