Comment

Representation ID: 293

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Essex County Council

Under the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) Essex County Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority responsible for managing the risk of flooding from surface water flood risk; groundwater and ordinary watercourses (local flood risk). Essex County Council seeks amendments to the proposed standards a - Quality and c - Quality.

Amendments requested to policy and supporting text.

Object

Representation ID: 579

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Hansteen support this policy insofar as it is consistent with the "Technical Guidance to the NPPF". Table 1 of the Guidance sets out the instances where FRAs are required. In the case of Flood Zone 1 areas (like the industrial estates in West Horndon) it suggests a brief form of FRA is appropriate, unless the local considerations indicate otherwise. Hansteen seeks clarification of the factors that have resulted in the draft plan not accepting the advice given in the Technical Guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 627

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

No mention of the Chelmsford Flood Alleviation scheme appears in this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 830

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

We support the principle of SuDs drainage and would emphasise that the preliminary drainage strategy for Officers Meadows has been designed accordingly.

Support

Representation ID: 868

Received: 26/09/2013

Respondent: Environment Agency

Supportive of this policy to promote use of SuDS following the preferred hierarchy of surface water drainage. Supporting text notes that sewage infrastructure in the north of the Borough is at full capacity, so we support standard 'e. redeveloped brownfield sites should disconnect any surface water drainage from the foul network.'

However, we recommend a more positive description is given to the benefits afforded by the Water Framework Directive in para 4.166. While some water bodies have been heavily modified and may never revert entirely back to their natural state, the Directive still aims that they achieve good ecological potential.

Support

Representation ID: 878

Received: 26/09/2013

Respondent: Anglian Water

We are particularly supportive of Policies DM35: Flood Risk, DM36: Sustainable Drainage.

Object

Representation ID: 949

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Thames Water

Agent: Savills UK

Thames Water have concerns regarding the wording of Policy DM36 which does not require developers to follow the sequential approach for the disposal of surface water. The policy should set out a clear hierarchy for the management of surface water to be followed by developers if it is to be effective rather than setting out a preferred hierarchy.

Comment

Representation ID: 1291

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Mr Richard Romang

There seems to be a total disregard for SuDs or surface water harvesting in the development of drives at the front of properties. I have seen many lawns and planting beds removed from the front of properties to be replaced by block paved drives which do not appear to take drainage into consideration. We already have regular flooding issues in Blackmore and little control over the creation of hard standing areas. I would like to see more focus on surface water drainage and SuDs legislation relating to small development in the LDP

Comment

Representation ID: 1916

Received: 24/10/2013

Respondent: Historic England

Sustainable drainage systems should take account of potential impacts on heritage assets, especially undesignated archaeology that may be harmed by excavation for water storage or, in the case of organic remains, by changes in the water table.