Show Posts
31
The B-Ark / Re: If we do not support this we may not have a club to support!
« on: June 24, 2014, 09:44:54 AM »
Environment Agency letter to Boston Borough Council dated 3RD June.
While I expect the issues raised here to be addressed I doubt they will be addressed and a acceptable FRA obtained before the planning meeting on 5TH August. In this format BBC cannot pass this. It would be refused & then Chestnuts go back on appeal? Should the application be withdrawn and resubmitted at a letter date with a acceptable FRA?
Boston Borough Council
Development Control
Municipal Buildings West Street
Boston
Lincolnshire
PE21 8QR
FAO: Mr Paul Edwards
Our ref: AN/2014/119454/01-L01
Your ref: B/14/0165
Date: 03 June 2014
Dear Mr Edwards
Hybrid planning application (part outline, part full) for a single composite development
Land either side of the A16, South of Tytton Lane East, Boston
Thank you for referring the application above received on 14 May 2014.
Environment Agency position
We can confirm that in the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we object to the application as currently submitted, for the following reasons.
Reasons
The FRA submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (paragraph 30). The submitted FRA does not therefore provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. In particular, the main deficiencies with the submitted FRA (Reference Tytton Lane FRA, dated April 2014) are as follows:
• Third party impacts
Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement (Volume 1) has referred to the 1% event, which is not appropriate. The tidal scenario should use the 0.5% event. Our assessment has considered only the submitted FRA and associated surface water information.
There is an acknowledgement in the supporting FRA that the consequences of flooding would be increased to adjacent third parties. The local planning authority (LPA) will need to determine the significance of this increase in flood risk, as the resultant hazard category in some areas in the locality of the site increases to 'danger to all'. Further evidence to provide a clear context for the changes, specifically increases, in consequences to third parties should be provided, as outlined below.
To allow the LPA to be informed, the model outputs should locate, plot and label any change in depth, velocity and hazard. The number of properties, and the extent of increase or decrease in flood consequence, should also be clearly identified. For example, flood depths appear to increase to the sheltered housing complex on Causeway, and the LPA will need to assess the impacts based on the vulnerability of the existing development and its users.
There are some increases in hazard apparent on the south- west of the pdf outputs although not all of these are included on the submitted plan. The plan should be amended to include all areas where an increased risk is expected from the model outputs.
Paragraph 101 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) specifically states that '...where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere'. On receipt of the above information, we propose that we will draw out relevant sections of the FRA to allow you to determine the significance of any increased risk of flooding from this development to third parties and inform your decision.
• Highly vulnerable uses
For information, any element of the development that requires hazardous substances consent will be subject to a ‘highly vulnerable’ flood risk vulnerability classification. As the proposed storage tanks will be underground, there may be additional mitigation measures that are required. This could include valves above the maximum flood depth over the lifetime of the development, or emergency isolation switches. For information, please note that the hotel would be classed as ‘more vulnerable’ rather than the ‘highly vulnerable’ designation currently proposed in Section 3.5.9 of the FRA.
• More vulnerable uses (residential units, public house and hotel)
We can confirm that a finished floor level (FFL) of 1.0m above existing site levels with resilient construction (Section 4.2.7.8) would not be considered adequate. Furthermore, minimal information has been provided on the proposed mitigation for the public house, which is assigned a flood risk vulnerability classification of 'more vulnerable' when considering the NPPG. We require confirmation of the minimum mitigation techniques that will be incorporated into ‘more vulnerable’ development, which should include a resistant approach, rather than a resilient approach.
Please note there are incorrect references to the flood risk vulnerability classification for some elements of the proposal in the text contained within sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the FRA. Residential housing should be classed as ‘more vulnerable’ rather than ‘highly vulnerable’ which has been suggested, and the same would apply to the proposed hotel, as mentioned above.
Given this is an outline application with no exacting commitment to mitigation delivery, and subject to sufficiently detailed evidence coming forward to amend the FRA and to inform the LPA on the impacts to third parties, we would be able to recommend a planning condition to secure the necessary minimum mitigation in all more vulnerable uses. This would also retain the flexibility of platform types.
• Less vulnerable uses
Flood risk to the ‘less vulnerable’ aspects of the development should be quantified in relation to mAODN. The FRA has proposed an area of safe refuge above the expected flood depth, which we support, in combination with flood resilient construction techniques. However, without more information on the consequences of flooding to the development, we cannot provide advice to the LPA to inform their judgement on whether the remaining risks can be managed through flood warning and evacuation.
• Surface water management
We note that the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) has set an allowable discharge rate of 1.4 litres per second per hectare. The proposed discharges from the site appear to exceed this agreed rate, and therefore written confirmation of the IDB's acceptance of these increased discharge rates should be provided. Any reduction/change to the discharge rates currently proposed should also be reflected in the submitted surface water calculations.
• Reducing flood risk overall
Paragraph 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that development “where possible, will reduce flood risk overall”, and it is our opinion that a proposal of this scale and nature should seek opportunities to do this. It is not clear from the information submitted what contribution to reducing flood risk is being made by this application.
Finally, we cannot agree with the statement contained with Section 3.7.1 of the FRA that ground raising will effectively situate development outside of Flood Zone 3a once complete, as no absolute platform height has been proposed. The 'no defences scenario' would need to be re-run, and the flood zone formally challenged, upon completion of the platform construction.
Overcoming our objection
The applicant can overcome our objection by submitting an amended FRA which covers the deficiencies highlighted above and demonstrates that the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and where possible reduces flood risk overall.
We ask to be formally re-consulted once a FRA is submitted, and we will then provide further comments within 21 days. Please note our objection will be maintained until an adequate FRA has been submitted and approved.
Once the outstanding information has been provided, we would look to secure the required mitigation measures through suitably worded planning conditions.
Our suggested conditions would look to ensure that surface water management is adequately addressed prior to development commencing. We would also request a further condition to secure a flood risk management strategy. This would ensure the following:
• that ‘more vulnerable’ uses have a minimum habitable floor level (or bedrooms in the hotel) located above the maximum flood depths arising from the 0.5% 2115 breach scenario.
• that ‘more vulnerable’ single storey development (ground floor flats, bungalows etc) have FFL located above the maximum flood depths arising from the 0.1% 2115 breach scenario.
• that ‘less vulnerable’ development provides an area of safe refuge above the maximum flood level, specified in mAODN.
• that all additional minimum mitigation measures, such as resilient construction techniques etc, are secured and implemented by way of the planning condition.
Sequential Test
The FRA contains supporting information relating to the flood risk Sequential Test. For the residential element, it has been stated that there are no local plan allocations remaining, which have not been built or commenced. It is our opinion that sites contained in your Authority’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) should have been considered as part of the assessment of alternative sites, and we would wish to see this as part of the FRA. Further guidance on the level of information that we would expect to see when demonstrating the flood risk Sequential Test can be found on our website, at the following link https://www.gov.uk/flood-risk-standing-advice-frsa-for-local-planning-authorities.
The FRA also differentiates between two search areas that have been considered for the proposed football stadium – one following the ‘local authority boundary’ and one that is ‘district wide’. We would request further clarification on the difference between these two areas.
Foul Drainage
We note that the developers have had initial discussions with Anglian Water Services (AWS). Foul flows will go to the mains sewer, and will be treated at Frampton Sewage Treatment Works (STW). AWS has stated that whilst there is sufficient capacity at the STW, upgrades to the collection system will be required. Our flow monitoring records show that in 2013, Frampton STW had permitted headroom for approximately 443 new houses.
Groundwater and Contaminated Land
We have reviewed the following reports:
• Phase I Desk Study Report (reference 13-0525.01, dated November 2013)
• Summary Site Investigation Report, Desk Study and Sampling (reference 13-0525.03, dated November 2013)
Based on the available information, we consider the site to pose a negligible risk to controlled waters.
Information for the applicant
Areas used as car parks
Areas with more than 50 car parking spaces are susceptible to oil contamination, and therefore surface water should have appropriate interception prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system. Roof water should not pass through the interceptor. For areas with less than 50 spaces, surface water should be passed through trapped gullies.
Waste from construction activities
The construction of a new development will result in a substantial amount of controlled waste being generated. When disposing of waste generated from site the developer must apply the waste hierarchy in a priority order of prevention, re-use, recycling before considering other recovery or disposal options. Government Guidance on the waste hierarchy in England is available at the following link http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13530-waste-hierarchy-guidance.pdf.
The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer, as a waste producer, therefore has a duty of care to ensure that all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and that all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the developer must ensure that a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material to a suitably permitted facility.
The applicant is advised to contact our National Customer Contact Centre for further advice on 03708 506506. Alternatively, please refer to the guidance that is available on our website at the following link https://www.gov.uk/environmental-management/waste.
If any waste is to be used on site then any waste soils, aggregates or gravels must be sourced from an appropriate supplier. The applicant may be required to obtain the appropriate waste exemption or permit from us to use/store waste on site. We are unable to specify what exactly would be required at this stage, if anything. The applicant is again advised to refer to the guidance on our website for further information.
Proposed petrol filling station
The applicant should refer to Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) Note 7 ‘Safe operation of refuelling facilities’. This document is available on our website at the following link https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operating-refuelling-sites-ppg7-prevent-pollution.
The applicant should give consideration to the following:
• Site drainage: including a drainage plan for the areas at high risk of spills or regular contamination (such as the forecourt and fuel delivery areas). This should include details of contaminated water disposal and oil interceptors. Please refer to PPG Note 3 ‘Choosing and using oil separators’ available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/choosing-and-using-oil-separators-ppg3-prevent-pollution.
• Details of the quantities of fuel being stored at the site and how this will be stored (i.e. underground tanks, double skinned, leak detection). If a vehicle washing area will also be provided, please refer to PPG Note 13 ‘Vehicle washing and cleaning’ available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-washing-and-cleaning-ppg13-prevent-pollution.
Pollution prevention
To prevent any pollution to the environment from occurring, all work should be undertaken following the practices in PPG Note 1 ‘Understanding Your Environmental Responsibilities’ available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/basic-good-environmental-practices-ppg1-prevent-pollution.
Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact Rob Millbank (Planning Advisor) on 01522 785868.
Yours faithfully
Mr James Brackenbury
Sustainable Places – Team Leader
Direct dial 01522 785868
Direct e-mail rob.millbank@environment-agency.gov.uk
While I expect the issues raised here to be addressed I doubt they will be addressed and a acceptable FRA obtained before the planning meeting on 5TH August. In this format BBC cannot pass this. It would be refused & then Chestnuts go back on appeal? Should the application be withdrawn and resubmitted at a letter date with a acceptable FRA?
Boston Borough Council
Development Control
Municipal Buildings West Street
Boston
Lincolnshire
PE21 8QR
FAO: Mr Paul Edwards
Our ref: AN/2014/119454/01-L01
Your ref: B/14/0165
Date: 03 June 2014
Dear Mr Edwards
Hybrid planning application (part outline, part full) for a single composite development
Land either side of the A16, South of Tytton Lane East, Boston
Thank you for referring the application above received on 14 May 2014.
Environment Agency position
We can confirm that in the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we object to the application as currently submitted, for the following reasons.
Reasons
The FRA submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (paragraph 30). The submitted FRA does not therefore provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. In particular, the main deficiencies with the submitted FRA (Reference Tytton Lane FRA, dated April 2014) are as follows:
• Third party impacts
Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement (Volume 1) has referred to the 1% event, which is not appropriate. The tidal scenario should use the 0.5% event. Our assessment has considered only the submitted FRA and associated surface water information.
There is an acknowledgement in the supporting FRA that the consequences of flooding would be increased to adjacent third parties. The local planning authority (LPA) will need to determine the significance of this increase in flood risk, as the resultant hazard category in some areas in the locality of the site increases to 'danger to all'. Further evidence to provide a clear context for the changes, specifically increases, in consequences to third parties should be provided, as outlined below.
To allow the LPA to be informed, the model outputs should locate, plot and label any change in depth, velocity and hazard. The number of properties, and the extent of increase or decrease in flood consequence, should also be clearly identified. For example, flood depths appear to increase to the sheltered housing complex on Causeway, and the LPA will need to assess the impacts based on the vulnerability of the existing development and its users.
There are some increases in hazard apparent on the south- west of the pdf outputs although not all of these are included on the submitted plan. The plan should be amended to include all areas where an increased risk is expected from the model outputs.
Paragraph 101 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) specifically states that '...where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere'. On receipt of the above information, we propose that we will draw out relevant sections of the FRA to allow you to determine the significance of any increased risk of flooding from this development to third parties and inform your decision.
• Highly vulnerable uses
For information, any element of the development that requires hazardous substances consent will be subject to a ‘highly vulnerable’ flood risk vulnerability classification. As the proposed storage tanks will be underground, there may be additional mitigation measures that are required. This could include valves above the maximum flood depth over the lifetime of the development, or emergency isolation switches. For information, please note that the hotel would be classed as ‘more vulnerable’ rather than the ‘highly vulnerable’ designation currently proposed in Section 3.5.9 of the FRA.
• More vulnerable uses (residential units, public house and hotel)
We can confirm that a finished floor level (FFL) of 1.0m above existing site levels with resilient construction (Section 4.2.7.8) would not be considered adequate. Furthermore, minimal information has been provided on the proposed mitigation for the public house, which is assigned a flood risk vulnerability classification of 'more vulnerable' when considering the NPPG. We require confirmation of the minimum mitigation techniques that will be incorporated into ‘more vulnerable’ development, which should include a resistant approach, rather than a resilient approach.
Please note there are incorrect references to the flood risk vulnerability classification for some elements of the proposal in the text contained within sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the FRA. Residential housing should be classed as ‘more vulnerable’ rather than ‘highly vulnerable’ which has been suggested, and the same would apply to the proposed hotel, as mentioned above.
Given this is an outline application with no exacting commitment to mitigation delivery, and subject to sufficiently detailed evidence coming forward to amend the FRA and to inform the LPA on the impacts to third parties, we would be able to recommend a planning condition to secure the necessary minimum mitigation in all more vulnerable uses. This would also retain the flexibility of platform types.
• Less vulnerable uses
Flood risk to the ‘less vulnerable’ aspects of the development should be quantified in relation to mAODN. The FRA has proposed an area of safe refuge above the expected flood depth, which we support, in combination with flood resilient construction techniques. However, without more information on the consequences of flooding to the development, we cannot provide advice to the LPA to inform their judgement on whether the remaining risks can be managed through flood warning and evacuation.
• Surface water management
We note that the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) has set an allowable discharge rate of 1.4 litres per second per hectare. The proposed discharges from the site appear to exceed this agreed rate, and therefore written confirmation of the IDB's acceptance of these increased discharge rates should be provided. Any reduction/change to the discharge rates currently proposed should also be reflected in the submitted surface water calculations.
• Reducing flood risk overall
Paragraph 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that development “where possible, will reduce flood risk overall”, and it is our opinion that a proposal of this scale and nature should seek opportunities to do this. It is not clear from the information submitted what contribution to reducing flood risk is being made by this application.
Finally, we cannot agree with the statement contained with Section 3.7.1 of the FRA that ground raising will effectively situate development outside of Flood Zone 3a once complete, as no absolute platform height has been proposed. The 'no defences scenario' would need to be re-run, and the flood zone formally challenged, upon completion of the platform construction.
Overcoming our objection
The applicant can overcome our objection by submitting an amended FRA which covers the deficiencies highlighted above and demonstrates that the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and where possible reduces flood risk overall.
We ask to be formally re-consulted once a FRA is submitted, and we will then provide further comments within 21 days. Please note our objection will be maintained until an adequate FRA has been submitted and approved.
Once the outstanding information has been provided, we would look to secure the required mitigation measures through suitably worded planning conditions.
Our suggested conditions would look to ensure that surface water management is adequately addressed prior to development commencing. We would also request a further condition to secure a flood risk management strategy. This would ensure the following:
• that ‘more vulnerable’ uses have a minimum habitable floor level (or bedrooms in the hotel) located above the maximum flood depths arising from the 0.5% 2115 breach scenario.
• that ‘more vulnerable’ single storey development (ground floor flats, bungalows etc) have FFL located above the maximum flood depths arising from the 0.1% 2115 breach scenario.
• that ‘less vulnerable’ development provides an area of safe refuge above the maximum flood level, specified in mAODN.
• that all additional minimum mitigation measures, such as resilient construction techniques etc, are secured and implemented by way of the planning condition.
Sequential Test
The FRA contains supporting information relating to the flood risk Sequential Test. For the residential element, it has been stated that there are no local plan allocations remaining, which have not been built or commenced. It is our opinion that sites contained in your Authority’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) should have been considered as part of the assessment of alternative sites, and we would wish to see this as part of the FRA. Further guidance on the level of information that we would expect to see when demonstrating the flood risk Sequential Test can be found on our website, at the following link https://www.gov.uk/flood-risk-standing-advice-frsa-for-local-planning-authorities.
The FRA also differentiates between two search areas that have been considered for the proposed football stadium – one following the ‘local authority boundary’ and one that is ‘district wide’. We would request further clarification on the difference between these two areas.
Foul Drainage
We note that the developers have had initial discussions with Anglian Water Services (AWS). Foul flows will go to the mains sewer, and will be treated at Frampton Sewage Treatment Works (STW). AWS has stated that whilst there is sufficient capacity at the STW, upgrades to the collection system will be required. Our flow monitoring records show that in 2013, Frampton STW had permitted headroom for approximately 443 new houses.
Groundwater and Contaminated Land
We have reviewed the following reports:
• Phase I Desk Study Report (reference 13-0525.01, dated November 2013)
• Summary Site Investigation Report, Desk Study and Sampling (reference 13-0525.03, dated November 2013)
Based on the available information, we consider the site to pose a negligible risk to controlled waters.
Information for the applicant
Areas used as car parks
Areas with more than 50 car parking spaces are susceptible to oil contamination, and therefore surface water should have appropriate interception prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system. Roof water should not pass through the interceptor. For areas with less than 50 spaces, surface water should be passed through trapped gullies.
Waste from construction activities
The construction of a new development will result in a substantial amount of controlled waste being generated. When disposing of waste generated from site the developer must apply the waste hierarchy in a priority order of prevention, re-use, recycling before considering other recovery or disposal options. Government Guidance on the waste hierarchy in England is available at the following link http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13530-waste-hierarchy-guidance.pdf.
The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer, as a waste producer, therefore has a duty of care to ensure that all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and that all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the developer must ensure that a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material to a suitably permitted facility.
The applicant is advised to contact our National Customer Contact Centre for further advice on 03708 506506. Alternatively, please refer to the guidance that is available on our website at the following link https://www.gov.uk/environmental-management/waste.
If any waste is to be used on site then any waste soils, aggregates or gravels must be sourced from an appropriate supplier. The applicant may be required to obtain the appropriate waste exemption or permit from us to use/store waste on site. We are unable to specify what exactly would be required at this stage, if anything. The applicant is again advised to refer to the guidance on our website for further information.
Proposed petrol filling station
The applicant should refer to Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) Note 7 ‘Safe operation of refuelling facilities’. This document is available on our website at the following link https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operating-refuelling-sites-ppg7-prevent-pollution.
The applicant should give consideration to the following:
• Site drainage: including a drainage plan for the areas at high risk of spills or regular contamination (such as the forecourt and fuel delivery areas). This should include details of contaminated water disposal and oil interceptors. Please refer to PPG Note 3 ‘Choosing and using oil separators’ available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/choosing-and-using-oil-separators-ppg3-prevent-pollution.
• Details of the quantities of fuel being stored at the site and how this will be stored (i.e. underground tanks, double skinned, leak detection). If a vehicle washing area will also be provided, please refer to PPG Note 13 ‘Vehicle washing and cleaning’ available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-washing-and-cleaning-ppg13-prevent-pollution.
Pollution prevention
To prevent any pollution to the environment from occurring, all work should be undertaken following the practices in PPG Note 1 ‘Understanding Your Environmental Responsibilities’ available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/basic-good-environmental-practices-ppg1-prevent-pollution.
Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact Rob Millbank (Planning Advisor) on 01522 785868.
Yours faithfully
Mr James Brackenbury
Sustainable Places – Team Leader
Direct dial 01522 785868
Direct e-mail rob.millbank@environment-agency.gov.uk
I thought they played well down here, and may be some value in a bet on Workington. To ensure a win for the lads, I will back Workington anyway, with my luck Boston will win 8-0 
