Comment

Representation ID: 24687

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: RSPB

Agent: RSPB

The RSPB fully supports a co-ordinated, planned approach to the implementation of SuDS.
SuDS need to be incorporated at the earliest stage of the planning process, be on or near the land surface and delivered in broad partnership to the satisfaction of the end user (residents).
Their effectiveness should also be monitored.
In conjunction with the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), we have produced a report on this subject (Graham/Day/Bray/Mackenzie - Sustainable Drainage Systems - Maximising the potential for people and wildlife: A guide for local authorities and developers).

Comment

Representation ID: 24921

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Q74 reads "SUDS are designed to reduce potential of new and existing developments with respect to surface water drainage." It should say SUDS are designed to manage runoff from new developments, reducing damage from flooding, improving water quality, protecting and improving the environment, protecting health and safety and ensuring - SUDS definition Floods and Water Management Act.

IBC have endorsed The Suffolk Flood Risk Management Strategy, this provides guiding principles for SUDS in Suffolk. Appendix A provides guidance on SuDS designs and describes associated National Planning Policies/Guidance.

Early consideration of spatial/locational requirements for SuDS in the planning process is essential.

Comment

Representation ID: 25170

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Chamber of Commerce

Clearly a lot of money had been spent on the current flood defence scheme; is the scheme sufficient for future needs or does it need to be extended further down river?

Comment

Representation ID: 25317

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

Ensure suitable drainage and sewerage infrastructure is in place before a development takes place rather than by the time it is completed.

Comment

Representation ID: 25338

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Environment Agency

There is no mention in this section of the fluvial flood risk from the River Gipping, nor of the residual tidal risk remaining from the overtopping or breach of flood defences. Both of these sources of flood risk may need to be addressed by developers in their FRAs. The Local Plan should consider a local policy defining what development would be considered accessible in areas at risk of flooding. This would provide clarity and enable developers to understand what could be considered safe. We would welcome discussion with you to create such as policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 25439

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Flood risk should be mitigated wherever possible via the use of SuDS and other water management features as outlined in the SCC Flood Risk Management Strategy (SFRMS). The County Council seeks inclusion of a requirement for new development of all scales to incorporate sustainable drainage systems into their design in line with the details contained within the SFRMS and any area specific Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP). It is recommended that the new Local Plan refer to the mitigation of surface water flooding and reference the protection of the water quality of watercourses. SCC would also welcome measures which increase water efficiency, such as water butts.