Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Search representations

Results for Environment Agency search

New search New search

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

g:

Representation ID: 5193

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Support but require changes. We support this approach of dispersing green open space through the town and providing an ecological network of green corridors. When incorporated into developments, these areas can have other functions, such providing space for SuDS features, which help to both reduce flood risk and protect water quality. We consider it would be beneficial to include these benefits within the text of this policy.

Full text:

We support this approach of dispersing green open space through the town and providing an ecological network of green corridors. When incorporated into developments, these areas can have other functions, such providing space for SuDS features, which help to both reduce flood risk and protect water quality. We consider it would be beneficial to include these benefits within the text of this policy.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

8.45

Representation ID: 5194

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Support but require changes. We support this reference to the legislation and policy protecting natural assets. However, we consider that the Water Framework Directive should be included in list, as an important piece of legislation for the protection of waterbodies, which can have an indirect impact on EU Habitats Directive and Ramsar sites.

Full text:

We support this reference to the legislation and policy protecting natural assets. However, we consider that the Water Framework Directive should be included in list, as an important piece of legislation for the protection of waterbodies, which can have an indirect impact on EU Habitats Directive and Ramsar sites.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

8.50

Representation ID: 5195

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Support but require changes. We support the inclusion of this paragraph, which discusses the importance of ecological networks in conserving important habitats and helping to provide resilience to pressures such as climate change. We are pleased to note that the Council recognises its biodiversity responsibility under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and recommend that the Council's responsibilities under the Water Framework Directive are also recognised in this section.

Full text:

We support the inclusion of this paragraph, which discusses the importance of ecological networks in conserving important habitats and helping to provide resilience to pressures such as climate change. We are pleased to note that the Council recognises its biodiversity responsibility under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and recommend that the Council's responsibilities under the Water Framework Directive are also recognised in this section.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

8.186

Representation ID: 5196

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

We support Policy CS18, which demonstrates the Council's intention to work with partners, such as ourselves, to implement the Ipswich Flood Defence Strategy. We would suggest that the wording in this paragraph is amended to read - 'the tidal surge barrier is unlikely to be in place until the end of 2017'. This amendment should be reflected in other areas of the Local Plan where the completion date is given.

Full text:

We support Policy CS18, which demonstrates the Council's intention to work with partners, such as ourselves, to implement the Ipswich Flood Defence Strategy. We would suggest that the wording in this paragraph is amended to read - 'the tidal surge barrier is unlikely to be in place until the end of 2017'. This amendment should be reflected in other areas of the Local Plan where the completion date is given.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

DM4 - Development and Flood Risk

Representation ID: 5197

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We are very supportive of Policy DM4 We are pleased to note that the policy ensures that new development does not increase flood risk overall from any form of flooding. We consider that the policy could mention that the benefits of using SuDS include both flood risk and water quality.

Given the future of Suffolk County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, in surface water management, we would recommend you ensure that the County Council have been consulted on the wording of this policy.

Full text:

We are very supportive of Policy DM4 We are pleased to note that the policy ensures that new development does not increase flood risk overall from any form of flooding. We consider that the policy could mention that the benefits of using SuDS include both flood risk and water quality.

Given the future of Suffolk County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, in surface water management, we would recommend you ensure that the County Council have been consulted on the wording of this policy.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

9.29

Representation ID: 5198

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

We are pleased that Table 7 includes the recommendation that 'layout should be designed so that the most vulnerable uses are restricted to higher ground at lower risk of flooding, with more flood-compatible development (parking, open space etc.) in the highest risk areas'.

Full text:

We are pleased that Table 7 includes the recommendation that 'layout should be designed so that the most vulnerable uses are restricted to higher ground at lower risk of flooding, with more flood-compatible development (parking, open space etc.) in the highest risk areas'.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.