Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 587

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

EVIDENCE BASE

Steps are required to complete the evidence work for the plan to be found sound. Water quality and wastewater is a topic for Dudley that needs further attention both in terms of ensuring capacity exists to accommodate the growth proposals, and ensuring the policies protect and improve water quality.

Comment

Representation ID: 588

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

GENERAL POLICIES

As a general observation, the policies tend to use ambiguous or unquantified qualifiers such as “where appropriate”, “where viability constraints allow”, “where possible/practical”, “support”, “if feasible”, “consider”, “usually”, “normally”, “suggest”, “encourage”, etc. Such terms, unless fully justified and defined can easily undermine the intention of the policy, opening opportunities for derogations, exceptions, or appeals. Please review the policies for relative strength of wording as this will help to ensure the policies drive the type of development that meet the objectives of the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 589

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL/SITE ASSESSMENT

We have briefly reviewed the Site Assessment Report and Sustainability Appraisal. Although flood risk is referenced in both these documents, there was no specific reference to the flood risk sequential test, and it wasn’t clear to what extent the aims of the sequential test have been applied or achieved.

Comment

Representation ID: 590

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

SITE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

On page 12, although reference has been made to the Black Country Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2020 and 2021 update), it would be difficult to determine an amber or red rating without consulting a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The Level 2 SFRA will determine the overall deliverability of a site, it’s ability to pass the Exceptions Test and whether the capacity of the site would be hindered by flood risk constraints or necessary mitigation measures.

Comment

Representation ID: 591

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

SA/SFRA

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) commentary (page 25) appraises the housing growth options are against SA Objective 5 ‘Climate Change Adaptation.’ The comments focus on whether Options 1, 2 and 3 would result in a loss of open space or Green Infrastructure which would in turn exacerbate surface water flood risk or have adverse implications for adaptation. However, the growth options are not appraised as to whether they would meet the aims of the Sequential Test based on information supplied in the Council’s SFRA. See NPPF p.158

Before the next consultation on the plan, the Council will need to provide evidence that the Sequential Test has been applied to the local plan. This can either be as part of the Sustainability Appraisal, or preferably a standalone document.

Comment

Representation ID: 592

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

EVIDENCE BASE - SFRA Level 2

The Council will need to ensure SRFA Level 2 is considered and demonstrated prior to the next iteration of the Local Plan. The SFRA consultants will need to screen sites requiring a Level 2 Assessment. There are 11 site allocations which have significant fluvial flooding present on the site and 8 sites with smaller amounts of fluvial flooding on-site.

Comment

Representation ID: 593

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Black Country Councils Water Cycle Study Phase 1 Scoping (2020)

Severn Trent Water and South Staffordshire Water have been preparing and are in an advanced stage of developing their new and latest Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP24) and Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans. Study will need updating.

Comment

Representation ID: 594

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

A number of studies have since been udpated (see submission). Having said that we support the recommendations on water efficiency for new developments which have informed your draft Policy xxxxx. Whilst our plans and strategies have been updated, the primary reason for reviewing the study is to consider the latest water company plans as stated above.

We do welcome the reference to the hierarchy for foul drainage, and that proposals will not be permitted if they result in unacceptable risk to the quality or quantity of a waterbody. The policy could be improved by requiring proposals to consider how they can improve water quality as well as mitigate.

Water Water Treatment Works have limited capacity. Further work is required and is recommended by the Phase 1 to undertake a Phase 2 Outline Study (page 95). This would be a water quality assessment of how the proposed development in the draft local plan could impact the receiving waterbodies from increased discharges. We strongly recommend this is taken forward. We would not be able to accept a scenario where increased discharges would risk deterioration of waterbodies given our duties under The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations 2017. Similarly, local authorities must, when exercising their duties, have regard to River Basin Management Plans under section 33 of this legislation.

SuDs should be considered on sites that do not have a direct pathway to a SSSI. Could be linked to DLP45 and DLP46, which does not mention water quality.

Paragraph 12.59 refers to the Water Framework Directive and the objective for no deterioration. We think this section could be improved by summarising the current classification of waterbodies in Dudley and reasons for not achieving good as further context/evidence. The WFD surface waterbodies crossing Dudley have the following names and classification status:
• Stour (Worcs) source to conf Smestow Bk (GB109054044750) – status ‘poor.’
• Bobs-Holbeche Bk source to conf Smestow Bk (GB109054044830) – status ‘poor.’
• Birmingham to Wolverhampton Canal, Wolverhampton Level (GB70410516) – status ‘moderate.’ • Stourbridge Canal (GB70910519) – status ‘moderate.’
• Dudley Canals (GB70910535) – status ‘moderate.’
The waterbodies are unable to achieve good status for a variety of reasons (urban runoff, outfall discharges, physical modifications). The Black Country Councils Water Cycle Study Phase 1 Scoping (2020) will likely have information on this and there’s also the Severn River Basin Management Plan (2022) and associated Catchment Data Explorer.

Comment

Representation ID: 595

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

EVIDENCE BASE

Black Country Waste Study Update 2023
Our Waste Data Interrogators (WDIs) are updated annually, and the latest data is the 2022 dataset (for calendar year 2021) is now available. References in this study to 2021 WDI presumably refers to the 2020 data. We recommend checking the latest data and revising figures or clarifying accordingly.

Comment

Representation ID: 596

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Request that flood risk infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure is added infrastructure definition list (para 6.20).

The ultimate responsibility for maintaining watercourses rests with the landowner. We would expect that where future proposals are reliant on an existing flood defence asset that developers would engage early with us and ensure the Flood Risk Assessment takes account of this asset (level of protection/condition/residual risk) within the assessment.

We are aware of four community flood risk management schemes affecting Dudley which would potentially benefit from partnership funding: River Stour Halesowen, Illey Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme, Wordsley and Lye and Wordsley Brook.

It’s possible that Policy DLP6 will also be reliant on the delivery of infrastructure from Severn Trent where limited capacity currently exists, whether this is upgrades to the sewer network or receiving wastewater treatment works and development will need to be phased accordingly. Policy DLP6 needs to capture