Object

Representation ID: 1374

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: CPRE West Midlands Group

Agent: CPRE Worcestershire

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

DLP45.13 The word easement is being misused, so that the policy as currently drafted is meaningless. The word easement refers to a right of way, drainage, etc, not the land over which it passes (properly called the servient tenement). If the objective is for example to provide a means of access for clearing culverts, clear wording should be used to express that.

DLP45.15 The phrase “ground-truthing strategic datasets” is utter gobbledygook: does this refer to terriers kept by the Council, Environment Agency, and statutory undertakers? Plain English is needed.

12.50 The list appears to omit Withy Brook – or is that the same as Swan Brook? Similarly Black Brook (draining Saltwells Nature Reserve) appears to be omitted, being a tributary of Mouseweet Brook. Once again, the word easement is misused (see objection to DP45.13). It is not clear if the width required is 10m from the centres of the brook or a total of 10m. In any event, a 3m undeveloped strip of land on either side of small brooks should be quite sufficient. Only the river Stour needs more than that, possibly also its tributary Illey Brook.

Support

Representation ID: 1456

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We strongly support the policy, and particularly welcome the requirements from section 11 to 15 of the policy which cover watercourses and flood mitigation. These follow the recommendations of the Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and are consistent with national policy requirements on flood risk.

Section 3 and 4 will assist the Council in considering whether a site passes the Sequential Test at the planning application stage. The failure to pass the Sequential Test can be a reason for refusing planning consent. Applicants should aim to direct development projects to sites at the lowest risk of flooding and discuss the Sequential Test with the Council early to avoid potential disappointment or wasted time/resources.

Section 14 of the policy requires a ten metre easement (no built development) from the top of bank of main river (five metres for ordinary watercourses). We strongly support this. We cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring this easement is provided to reduce the risk of flooding from flood waters overtopping the bank bearing in the mind the changes we are already seeing in our weather as a result of climate change. This easement also enables future opportunities to improve the watercourse and allows for natural green corridors and habitat connectivity.

Point 16 is positive where it requires developments to seek wider betterment, contribute to a reduction in overall flood risk and provide partnership funding toward wider community schemes, and there are flood risk management schemes affecting Dudley which could potentially benefit from this. This section of the policy is derived from findings of the cumulative impact assessment of the Level 1 SFRA and demonstrates cross-boundary working on flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 1457

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Site Allocations

Although Dudley Council has applied the flood risk Sequential Test in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), there is currently no Level 2 SFRA to assess those sites that are proposed in areas of medium/high risk of fluvial flooding (Flood Zone 2 and 3) or surface water flood risk.

If following the application of the Sequential Test, it has not been possible to locate all development to areas with a lower risk of flooding, the Exceptions Test should be applied where applicable. This is set out in the NPPF paragraphs 169-171. Diagram 1 'Taking flood risk into account in the preparation of strategic policies' (paragraph 007) sets out the steps when a L2 SFRA is required. Paragraph 171 of the NPPF states that both parts of the Exceptions Test should be satisfied for a development to be allocated or permitted.

We are aware that Dudley are taking steps already to address this, and are in the process of screening the site allocations that will go forward for the Level 2 SFRA assessment with JBA. We welcome the Council in taking these steps to ensure that the sites are compliant with the NPPF and can be justified.

In the current absence of a Level 2 SFRA we consider the Local Plan, in particular the section setting out the housing allocations is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy (paragraphs 169-171). In our view it does not currently meet the justified test of soundness, as without a complete evidence base on flood risk to support the inclusion of the relevant site allocations, it is not an appropriate strategy based on an appropriate evidence base.

The Level 2 assessment will enable a better understanding of the flood risk characteristics on the site and immediate surrounds , including flood depths, rate of inundation, duration and hazard. It should be borne in mind that the presence of functional floodplain (flood zone 3b) on a site can significantly restrict that site's capacity to deliver development as only water compatible or essential infrastructure are permissible in this zone. Flood Zone 3a can also be restrictive if extents limit available space for flood mitigation measures. A main river passing through or adjacent to a site will also require the 10 metre easement from top of bank either side of the river. The impact of climate change would also require assessment as part of the Level 2 SFRA.

The Level 2 SFRA will help the Council to ascertain the overall deliverability of the site allocation and it's ability to pass the Exceptions Test. Bradley Road (East) and (West) will require careful assessment and consideration in this regard for the presence of flood zone 3b and 3a using the latest data. Caledonia Sewage Works and Lyde Green/Cradley Road are also sites affected by fluvial risk and we welcome that all these sites are being put forward for Level 2 assessment. We are aware the Council are including sites affected by surface water flood risk which is supported as all forms of flood risk should be considered.

Support

Representation ID: 1495

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Welcome addition to the list within equivalent section 16 (references to the canal network and Canal and River Trust).

Comment

Representation ID: 1557

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Historic England

The policy should consider what the harm could be for heritage assets as a result of both flooding and mitigation measures to the watercourse. For example, impacts to water logged archaeology that could be affected through alterations to the watercourse. A reference to the consideration of the historic environment within proposals would satisfy this.