Response from Mrs Maggie Mason, South Lakes Flood Partnership
1. Mrs Maggie Mason, South Lakes Flood Partnership : 4 Jan 2017 20:03:00
Please make your comments in the box below, making it clear which policy your response relates to using the policy reference number or paragraph number.
NE Kendal FLAG objects to Policy DM1 and DM6, whose combined effect will not be sufficient to control (and if necessary refuse) developments that cause flooding off site in flood sensitive areas, for example in Kendal. We consider these policies are unsound because they do not conform to to relevant sections in NPPF paragraphs 99 to 103 which culminate in Para 103. "When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere" , but also in Para 102 "without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall".
Para 100 makes the same point saying "safeguarding land from development that is required for current and future flood management, and using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding";
Neither policy attempts to require development to leave areas that naturally currently provide a flood storage facility, or make a positive contribution to a flooding problem area, or reduce the causes or impacts of flooding as required by NPPF. This is essential in our local situation, where Cumbrian rainfall is more intense and of longer duration that the national average, and is predicted to worsen more quickly under the impacts of climate change.
Specifically DM1. (General Requirements for all development) :
NE Kendal FLAG considers that the policy wording "ensuring there is effective flood risk management " in bullet 6 is too vague and non-specific and fails to achieve the stated aim to... "create a safe, secure and healthy environment " . The Sustainability Appraisal score is, in our view far too positive because there is no evidence to support the view that the policy would prevent worsening flooding in areas where urban drains are already inadequate.
AND
Policy DM6 – Surface Water disposal, Foul Water disposal and treatment, watercourses, flood defences and consideration of wider
land drainage interests .
We object to DM6 because it does NOT conform to the paragraphs quoted above from the NPPF, and would not achieve its' purpose, particularly to REDUCE the flood risk in the district,". For example: The policy does not require developers to contribute to improving water retention on sites, nor even in fact to assess the amount of water stored on site in winter conditions prior to development. The policy simply requires developers to act as water companies prefer, and enables the performance of the drainage system to be measured against the non statutory guidance (LASOO document March 2015) . The assessment of surface water drainage, together with groundwater flooding, is actually a much more complex matter that the current guidelines would indicate, and the policy should ensure that a full professional understanding of the local and site situation is applied, rather than a simplified tick box. e.g. LASOO refers to (national average !) storms of 6 hours duration, and does not require infiltration tests to be conducted in wet or winter conditions, and therefore following that advice would not achieve the requirements of NPPF in local conditions. In the Kent Valley rainfall events are often much longer, and groundwater levels often at or above the ground surface in prolonged wet periods.
The policy should say that developers should only use SUDS where appropriate, i.e. where they can demonstrate by thorough and locally specific assessments that neither on-site nor off-site flooding will result from floods such as occurred during Storm Desmond, and the likely worsening events over the next 100 years (probable life of the buildings). Also where discharge of surface water to water courses or existing sewers is proposed , this should not be permitted unless those routes for disposal have adequate capacity, even when all cumulative effects of a flood event are taken into account.
The policy should make it clear that, if it cannot be demonstrated that the development will not cause more flooding from SUDS or water courses or sewers downstream, development should be refused.