DONCASTER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK. Development & Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Document. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIONS (Regulation 18(4))

Transcription

1 DONCASTER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Development & Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Document STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIONS (Regulation 18(4)) October 2010

2 DONCASTER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Development & Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Document STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIONS (The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, (Regulation 18(4)) 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Statement has been prepared by Doncaster MBC under regulation 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 and in accordance with Doncaster s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. 1.2 It describes the involvement of key stakeholders in the production of the Development & Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), detailing who was consulted and how. It also presents a summary of the main issues raised and explains how these issues were dealt with in the adopted version of the SPD. 2 CONSULTATION PERIODS AND METHODS 2.1 The formal consultation period for the SPD ran for 4 weeks from 26 th February 2010 to 26 th March An advert was placed in the Doncaster Star on the 4 th March The SPD, the Sustainability Appraisal, the Statement of SPD Matters, Statement of Compliance and the Consultation Statement were made available for inspection throughout this period in the Council s Development & Planning Department (Danum House), Doncaster Central Library and on the Council s website. 2.2 Letters were sent out to all parties included on the Local Development Framework contacts database notifying them of the SPD consultation; this included statutory consultees and other relevant stakeholders. In addition, two drop-in sessions were advertised and held at Danum House on the 8 th & 9 th March 2010 to give the opportunity for stakeholders and individuals to discuss the SPD in more detail with Council Officers. 2.3 Appendix 1 details the general consultation comments that were received and how they have been responded to. Appendix 2 includes a summary of technical comments received and how these have been responded to. 3 APPROVAL & ADOPTION 3.1 Adoption of the SPD was endorsed by Planning Committee on the 20 th July The SPD was formally approved by Mr Andy Gutherson (Assistant Director of Development (Development & Planning)) under delegated authority on the 21 st September 2010.

3 Appendix 1 Formal Consultation Responses Organisation Area of SPD Comment Proposed Response Statutory Bodies Environment Agency Environment Agency Infill General Welcome work to translate national planning policy relating to development and flood risk at a local level through the preparation of locally specific guidance. Broadly support content; however object to proposal not to require a sequential test for infill residential development. Also need to apply Exceptions Test and consider site layout within infill developments. No weight should be attached to the SPD until it is formally adopted. Coal Authority Overall Broad support but requests some points of clarification be added to ensure that potential implications of coal extraction (subsidence and pumps) is taken into account in the planning process, and in particular assessing the flood risk of specific developments and sites Ministry of Overall Confirmed the MOD has no safeguarding comments Noted Defence Natural England General Natural England welcomes the references to SUDS and green roofs in objective 6. Also agree that the Sustainability appraisal has been carried out to an appropriate methodology. Yorkshire Forward General Broadly supports SPD but suggests more detail on SuDS and links to Green Infrastructure (GI) Sue Rawlings Explicit reference required for redevelopments to meet local (Neighbourhood priorities Manager Thorne & Moorends) Infrastructure Providers British Waterways Broad support, but suggests some further clarification of table 2 where potentially more than one exception applies. British Waterways General Suggests adding reference to all watercourses including the Sheffield & South Yorkshire, Stainforth & Keadby and New Junction canals. Should explain that discharges into canals from new developments e.g. surface water discharge, has the potential to impact on the structural integrity of the waterway and affect navigation. Discharges can also have an impact on water levels and pose a flood risk. Therefore, we recommend that the consultation document also makes reference to Amend as suggested in relation to exceptions test and site lay out. See main body of report in relation to infill residential development. Noted, although the SPD replaces a current guidance note and therefore it is considered that even at draft stage it is a helpful summary of the authority s stance on flooding policy. However in the case of refusals, UDP and national policies provide sufficient justification without having to rely on the SPD alone. Amend SPD as suggested No amendments Noted Amend SPD Include paragraph to better explain the link between SuDS and GI, and reference wider guidance on urban design. Amend SPD add paragraph to explain that where the redevelopment of a site or building is require to deliver acknowledged local priorities a sequential test may not be required, but that justification of the circumstances will be required. Amend SPD to provide clarification as suggested Amend SPD to provide clarification as suggested

4 consulting British Waterways on any proposed discharges into these canals. Highways Agency General No concerns raised Noted National Grid Overall No concerns raised Noted Anglian Water Overall No concerns raised Noted Town & Parish Councils Epworth Town Overall Raise no concerns Noted Council Thorne-Moorends Town Council Sprotbrough Parish Council Rossington Parish Council Rossington Parish Council Rossington Parish Council Rossington Parish Council Rossington Parish Council Considers that 1) That all extensions to existing industrial, leisure and commercial sites over 250 square metres should require a sequential test. 2) That all wind farms should require a sequential test and 3) That all quarries should require a sequential test. The main reason for this is that all such developments could have a significant effect on neighbouring properties from a ground water/flooding point of view. No amendments - Point 1: Any proposals for extensions which are operationally linked to existing sites, will be required to incorporate adequate flood mitigation measures and not cause flooding elsewhere. Re Points 2 & 3: The approach in Doncaster is guided by national Planning Policy Statement 25 which considers wind farms and quarries to be water compatible. Any proposals for extensions which are operationally linked to existing sites, will be required to incorporate adequate flood mitigation measures and not cause flooding elsewhere General Consultation Period not long enough Noted - Consultation was carried out in accordance with the adopted statement of community involvement. However, where possible loner consultation periods will be used for future consultations. General Should acknowledge flood issues in Rossington. Amend SPD to clarify that Rossington has experienced surface water flooding. General Concerns that economic considerations override all other concerns. No amendments required - promoting economic regeneration and growth are important considerations for the SPD, although it clearly emphasises the need for sustainable development which includes economic, social and environmental considerations. General Points of clarification over water-courses referred to. Amend SPD to provide clarification General Questions of clarification on related, but separate processes and documents. Why do sites allocated in the LDF not require a sequential test? Other Groups & Individuals CABE Overall Raise no concerns Noted Theatres Trust Overall No concerns Noted Mr. K Johnson General The Environment Agency Flood/map indicates that most of the proposed new developments would be in Flood Zone 2 (medium probability) or more likely, Flood Zone 3 (high probability). No amendment Required not relevant for SPD (but separate clarification will be provided) Do not amend the SPD the LDF process of allocating sites includes carrying out a sequential test, therefore subsequent planning applications do not need to repeat this process. No amendments insufficient detail is included to respond to this point in detail, but it appears to relate to the application of past policy not the new SPD being consulted on.

5 The Doncaster MBC Draft Supplementary Plannning Document on flooding/ planning describes the various categories of risks and where they lead to planning permission being refused or granted. Quite clearly, flooding risk has not been properly taken account of in these matters, even by the proposed rules in the DMBC rules themselves. General Concern about DN7 development No amendments This is an issue for the Core Strategy not the SPD. Mrs. S. P. Lowndes Mr. C. Skelton General Concern that overdevelopment to the following areas could cause flood-risk to surrounding villages: land mass to the North of Hatfield, West of the M18 and East of Stainforth, referred to as the Hatfield/ Stainforth triangle, including: Hatfield Power Park, Powerfuel Power Station, The DEW Project, M18 Jn 5 Link Road and Development to the North and South of the proposed road P. A. Whittington General Provides information regarding a specific residential proposal and allocation of residential policy area Friends of the Targets Questions the appropriateness of the RSS monitoring targets Earth and mechanisms. Friends of the Overall Body of SPD does not explain how flooding policy will support Earth biodiversity and we should take a proactive stance on this Friends of the Exceptions The role of consultation in the exceptions test should be Earth Test clarified Minerals Products Association South Yorkshire Buildings Preservation Trust Broadly support SPD, but suggest that approach for ancillary quarrying operations be expanded to those not operationally links but still compatible with quarries and of a similar nature and taking place within existing quarries (such as aggregate recycling) Raises concerns that the draft SPD lacks flexibility regarding the exceptions test. In particular that regeneration and ongoing projects should not be halted due to flood risk. Raises concerns that the SPD may prevent developments within Thorne that will preserve its historic buildings. Makes detailed comments about a specific proposal. No amendments - These are issues for the Core Strategy not the SPD. No amendments - Not relevant for SPD Amend SPD - Explain how the RSS is produced and the role of Doncaster s AMR Amend SPD - Include paragraph to explain the link between SuDS and Green Infrastructure and biodiversity Amend SPD to explain that this is dealt with as part of the planning application process and associated public consultation. These processes are set out in separate documents and cover wider issues than flooding. No amendments - If not operationally linked then no justification for not requiring Sequential Test, if operationally linked then SPD already provides flexibility. No amendment required the response appears to confuse the formal Exceptions Test (which is only applied to certain forms of development, and only applied after the Sequential Test is passed) with the idea of making an exception to the principal of directing development to flood zone 1. The SPD provides much more flexibility to address local issues, particularly within areas such as Thorne. The key purpose is having evidence that there are reasons that a development proposed within a higher flood risk area could not be located in a lower flood risk area. Whilst the SPD cannot cover every eventuality, it does provide a framework for working through the process of assessing flood risk and clear broad aim and objectives. It is not clear how the respondent would suggest that this greater

6 Developers, Agents and Dacre, Son and Hartley (2 responses) Overall Broad support for SPD, but note that the SFRA needs to take account of local features and factors such as motorway embankments JVH Town Planning flexibility is required, and it is noted that some of the other respondents have raised concerns about the level of flexibility beyond PPS25 provided by the SPD as drafted. No amendment required - The annex on FRA addresses how to take account of flood defences, and the points raised can be considered through individual FRAs. The SPD forms a framework for assessment but cannot take account of every eventuality. Overall Should not be used for applications already submitted Noted, although the SPD replaces a current guidance note and therefore it is considered that even at draft stage it is a helpful summary of the authority s stance on flooding policy. However in the case of refusals, UDP and national policies provide sufficient justification without having to rely on the SPD alone. Overall Overall Section 1 Overall Section 3 SPD is premature without consideration at a strategic level of overall employment and housing needs and whether they could be within low flood risk areas. Also, should wait until the Environment Agency s Catchment Flood Management Plans are adopted. No weight should be attached to the SPD until it is formally adopted. The SPD does not explain why the current guidance is considered too strict to continue being used The SPD should demonstrate how it complies with PPS25 and its guide, with reference to specific paragraphs and quotes as appropriate. SPD should acknowledge in more detail that given the age of the UDP, more weight should be placed on the newer national flooding policy. No amendments - The SPD is hung from the UDP and informed by higher tiers of policy, especially PPS25. It includes reference to considering review after Core Strategy adoption. Noted, although the SPD replaces a current guidance note and therefore it is considered that even at draft stage it is a helpful summary of the authority s stance on flooding policy. However in the case of refusals, UDP and national policies provide sufficient justification without having to rely on the SPD alone. Amend SPD to provide more detail to explain that it is considered the previous approach was preventing smaller scale development within existing communities, including areas experiencing problems of deprivation. No amendments any update of PPS25 or the practice guide would lead to incorrect referencing and confusion, as has been the case with the references included in the guidance note. Amend SPD to explain that case-law shows that whilst the age of a policy is not in itself a factor in whether it is still relevant, what has happened since its adoption is relevant. Therefore, the UDP remains the statutory development plan and the exercise in 2006 to review and save some of its policies considered which were still relevant. However, the implementation of the UDP does need to take into account the latest national policy position, and in particular the approach to flooding set out in PPS25. This SPD is drafted in such a way as to reflect this position, and so other than explaining this point, the substance of the document does not need amendments to address the concern raised.

7 Wardell Armstrong LLP Aim General Should be amended to read, To provide a robust and transparent approach to managing flood risk within Doncaster, that acknowledges the need to facilitate the regeneration of deprived communities across the borough, and accords with up to date national policy and guidance on flood risk issues SPD focuses on the planning application and doesn t explain how flooding will be taken into account in developing the LDF 5.1 Questions how the role of the Environment Agency is described Section 5b Section 5b Section 5b Section 5b Section 5C Strongly objects to setting out more types of development that will be considered to automatically pass the sequential test that set out in PPS25. Concern over cumulative impact of such developments and implications for those seeking insurance. Particular concern raised about single infill dwellings. Raises concerns that development within flood risk areas may not be insurable SPD should offer guidance on what types of change of use may be acceptable within flood risk areas. Para 5.23 is a sweeping statement which does not sit well with the declared intent of 'delivering Doncaster's economic growth and regeneration' (para. 1.6). Previous appeal decisions should be related to the actual circumstances of individual applications and not used indiscriminately to establish supplementary guidance. Amend SPD to state, To provide a robust and transparent approach to managing flood risk within Doncaster, that acknowledges the need to facilitate the regeneration of deprived communities across the borough, and takes account of national policy No amendments - The role of SPDs is to set out in more detail how development plan policies will be implemented, not how they will be formulated. Amend to explain how the EA are consulted in line with the General Development Procedure Order, and then retain text which clarifies their general approach. No amendments this table reflects local circumstances and a pragmatic approach to managing flood risk, following experience of working with Doncaster s Guidance note first published in Further clarification could, however, be provided on some of these aspects, including local circumstances and the findings of the Settlement Study. See main body of report in relation to single infill dwellings. Whilst this is an important issue it is outside the remit of the SPD. A reference could be added to explain this. No amendments as per national policy changes of use do not require a sequential test Amend SPD to clarify that the reference to previous appeal decisions is included to help explain the context for producing the SPD, it is accepted that appeal decisions in themselves, should not be used as the basis for planning policy.

8 Wardell Armstrong LLP Pegasus Planning Group (on behalf of Askern Property Trading Company) Pegasus Planning Group (on behalf of Askern Property Trading Company) Pegasus Planning Group (on behalf of Askern Property Trading Company) Pegasus Planning Group (on behalf of Askern Property Trading Company) Pegasus Planning Group (on behalf of Askern Property Trading Company) Pegasus Planning Group (on behalf of Askern Property Trading Company) Rapleys (on behalf of Dooba Investment Properties Ltd) Rapleys (on behalf of Dooba Investment Properties Ltd) DPP (on St Modwen Properties PLC) Section 5F Suggests that where there is a FRA a sequential test is not No amendments the proposed amendment would be in required. fundamental conflict with national policy Para 2.3 Should clarify that the current SFRA is Level 1 only. Amend SPD to clarify difference between SFRA level 1 and 2 Objectives and Section 3 Section 5 Section 5C Section 5C Para 5.19 Section 5C Appendix 2 Should include detail on LDF process and explain that the Core Strategy is likely to identify more Principal Towns than the RSS, so should build in flexibility. Should consider status of 4 emerging principal towns in LDF Askern, Adwick-le-Street, Conisbrough and Armthrope Residential Infill - should cross reference the national policy that is used to justify the stance In establishing the area of search for the sequential test, we support a flexible approach that allows for the consideration of local circumstances. It is important that the application of the sequential test does not harm the benefits development can bring to local communities. This can include regeneration, local employment, affordable housing and improved infrastructure and community facilities. Where development can bring significant benefits to a local area, particularly deprived communities, and the area of search for alternative sites will by necessity be limited to that settlement in order to deliver those benefits. References to mixed use sites being disaggregated for the purposes of the Sequential Test are overly simplistic Concern over approach to disaggregating mixed-use proposals. Also some minor amends in references to PPS6 (should be PPS4). Concern about the format of the template for applicants to provide information. Amend SPD to state that the principles set out in the SPD as applying to Thorne and Mexborough will apply to all Principle Towns, including those allocated through the Core Strategy. See Main Body of Report Amend as suggested Amend SPD. The SPD allows for the consideration of the characteristics of individual applications. However, all developments are expected to bring at least some economic, social or environmental benefits (otherwise would fail other policy). Therefore, the benefits referred to need to be significant and linked to local priorities. Amend SPD to clarify that mixed use schemes will be disaggregated unless developers can provide justification as to why they should be considered as a single proposal this would allow flexibility to consider proposals on a case-by-case basis Amend SPD to clarify that mixed use schemes will be disaggregated unless developers can provide justification as to why they should be considered as a single proposal this would allow flexibility to consider proposals on a case-by-case basis Amend SPD - References will be updated. Clarify that the form is optional and only included to give an indication of how information might be presented. Section 5A More weight should be given to the SFRA findings Do not amend SPD. As written it explains that the EA s maps are only the starting point, and that the SFRA maps and site-specific modelling work should also be considered and allows for a case-by-

9 DPP (on St Modwen Properties PLC) DPP (on St Modwen Properties PLC) Suggests that defended areas should not require a Sequential Test. Suggests consideration should be given of a site s previous uses to prioritise the reuse of brownfield land case basis where there are other local circumstances. Do not amend SPD whilst the presence of defences is helpful when looking at flood risk assessments there will always be a residual risk of breach or overtopping and so to be in accordance with national policy the presence of defences is not in itself reason not to apply the sequential test No amendment - The SPD provides for replacement buildings to automatically pass the sequential test (subject to caveats) as there would be no overall net increase in the amount of development within a flood risk areas. Spawforths (on UK Coal) General The Flood Maps within the SPD should include a caveat that they are indicative, given the scale. Modelling has been carried out to demonstrate lower flood risk at Thorne Colliery. MRB Ecology Section 4 Challenges assumption that some development will be needed in flood risk areas to deliver housing and employment growth (and questions RSS approach). MRB Ecology General It is important that consideration is given to the wider water environment. Work to prevent or ameliorate flood risks must include measures such as Sustainable Urban Drainage as well as catchment-wide land management changes to increase water retention of the land and to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of watercourses. MRB Ecology Section 2 Para 2.9, Bullet Point 1 MRB Ecology Section 2 Para 2.9, No reference is made to the effects of increased urbanisation of the Don catchment upstream of Doncaster which is likely to have had a significant effect on flooding frequency in Doncaster. Also, there is no reference to the major channel modifications made to the lower Don through navigation works in past centuries. The rapid run-off into the Don system is influenced by the planning decisions made in the upper catchment, beyond the To adopt a similar approach for brownfield land would go further and hence a sequential test is required. Amend SPD to include caveat with map. Comments on Thorne Colliery noted, but individual FRAs not relevant for SPD. National Policy sets out a sequential approach whereby development within flood risk areas needs to justify why it is required to be within a flood risk area and could not be in a lower risk area, but does not prevent it per se. Regional Policy identifies Doncaster Main Urban Area, Thorne and Mexborough as areas for growth. Event without this policy, local evidence base (in particular the Settlement Study) provides justification for growth in areas which, although at risk of flooding, are otherwise sustainable locations for developments. However, some of these settlements (such as Thorne and parts of the Main Urban Area) are largely within EA flood zones. Therefore to achieve a sustainable pattern of growth (and, at present, be in conformity with regional policy) development within flood risk areas is likely to be required. Therefore the SPD is in accordance with national and regional policy, and local evidence base. The SPD is primarily about the consideration of flood risk in relation to new development and the planning process. It does include reference to the need to consider related issues such as water quality. The other points raised are valid concerns, but best reflected in other strategies such as the Environment Agency s Catchment Flood Management Plans. Add reference to this as suggested Amend SPD to make reference to the regional/sub-regional dimension referred to. The SPD does not considered the merit of

10 Barraton Studio Barraton Studio Barraton Studio Bullet Point 1 control of DMBC planning policy. River engineering to allow navigation reduced flow capacity in the town centre section of the Don. The River Don now flows in an artificial flood channel with no associated floodplain to accommodate flood flows. Existing urban development on the natural floodplain at Marshgate (so named for a reason) and current proposals for urban development on the Waterside area will do nothing to improve the situation. individual planning applications or proposed site allocations through the LDF. The need to consider the creation of washland (where this will improve the situation) could be considered through other documents such as the Core Strategy which it is envisaged will include a policy on Green Infrastructure Section 5A Should use SFRA Maps Do not amend SPD. As written it explains that the EA s maps are only the starting point, and that the SFRA maps and site-specific modelling work should also be considered and allows for a case-bycase basis where there are other local circumstances. Infill should include backland See main body of report Overall Should support small scale redevelopments No amendment - The SPD provides for replacement buildings to automatically pass the sequential test (subject to caveats) as there would be no overall net increase in the amount of development within a flood risk areas. The type of infill development that does not require a sequential test should include backland development as well as developments within an existing frontage Page 24 - Replacement dwellings - reference to 20% increase should be deleted - this is only lower case guidance in the UDP and so long as the occupancy is not materially increased it is irrelevant from a flooding point of view. Page 25 - redevelopment of existing industrial/commercial/retail areas - is there no limitation on how much more floor area there can be without the need for a sequential test. Section 5C Page 32 - Area of search for employment proposals - The Main Urban Area is too large an area of search - it extends from Kirk Sandal in the east, Bentley in the north, Lakeside in the south and Balby in the west. For example the availability of lower risk sites at Balby effectively prevents the development of higher risk sites in Kirk Sandall. These areas are on opposite sides of the town centre and access by public transport would necessitate changing in the town centre thereby encouraging the use of private cars. Either Kirk Sandall and Edenthorpe as well as Bentley should be removed from the main urban area and constitute single settlements for the purpose of search or the main urban area To adopt a similar approach for brownfield land in general would go further and hence a sequential test is required. See main body of report Amend SPD so that it states that as long as the footprint and occupancy is not significantly increased, retain 20% figure but clarify that this is guidance not a black and white rule. Amend SPD to clarify that the amount of additional floor space created is not relevant. Amend SPD to clarify that the principals it sets out are intended to provide a broad approach, but that the approach for the ST may alter on a case-by-case basis depending on the information provided by the applicant.

11 Section 5C Para 1.8 should be divided into at least three for this purpose - 1. Kirk Sandall/Edenthorpe/Intake/Wheatley 2. Lakeside and south Doncaster 3. Bentley 4. Balby. Page 36 - Employment land availability - it does not necessarily follow that because land is within the Doncaster Employment Land Availability Study that it is "available" Roof water is not usually polluting and the use of green roofs as an example when referring to improving water quality could be misleading. The use of green roofs also greatly reduces the amount of water percolating into the ground and over use could cause depletion of ground water levels Do not amend SPD the study is to provide the long list. If sites are not available then the site specific sequential test information provided by the applicant provides an opportunity to explain why this is the case and, if acceptable, the sites can then be discounted. Amend SPD to provide clarification Section 2 Various minor points of clarification in relation Amend SPD to provide clarification Objectives Section 4.7 Section 5A Objective 4 seeks to encourage firms to expand or consolidate their business. It would be useful to summarise at some point how far the draft document goes to meet this objective. Green roofs are not always of a very pleasing appearance unless the development is in an area that is predominantly grassland, wooded or rough vegetation. In developed areas other sustainable drainage solutions such as soakaways would be more appropriate The EA procedure for challenging flood maps is too complicated. The flood maps are a broad brush attempt and unjustly identify areas to be at risk of flooding when they are actually above any possible flood level (e.g. parts of Thorne). It should be sufficient to submit to the EA ground levels and their grid coordinates relating to a site so that they can re-run their model with the actual ground levels. It would be helpful if the Council could agree such a procedure with the EA as an aid to encouraging correction of poor flood mapping. The proposal for single infill properties to automatically pass the sequential test should be applied borough wide and not be restricted to the main Urban area, Mexborough and Thorne Proposals for demolishing and redeveloping non residential buildings for alternative uses - it is overly strict to require an Exception Test. There are sufficient safeguards defined in the text without adding the Exception Test requirement. Amend SPD to explain which aspects of SPD support which objective Do not amend SPD the text is providing an example and clarifies it by saying that Green Roofs can bring benefits (not will ). Do not amend SPD the comments are noted but this is outside the remit of the SPD. These comments will inform ongoing and wider discussions with the Environment Agency about how to deal with flooding issues within the borough Amend SPD depending on the approach taken in relation to the issues of Settlement Pattern (see main body of report) the approach could be extended to Conisbrough, Adwick-le-Street, Armthorpe and Askern. The justification for not requiring the sequential test is linked to areas with evidence as being sustainable locations for growth (as set out in the report taken to planning committee to inform production of the draft SPD for consultation). DO not amend SPD flexibility is applied in the way the sequential test is applied to reflect local circumstances. It does not automatically follow that the exceptions test should not be applied particularly as the sequential test is about re-suing brownfield land (which such

12 (on (on Section 5C Overall Section 5F Clarify that this refers to a residential Policy Area for each settlement as opposed to Residential Policy "Areas". When trying to establish the "have been marketed within the last six months" sites, is the six months to be taken from when the site was put on the market or from when it is taken off? Suggests the Sequential Test works better for LDF preparation than for individual applications. We consider that one of the most important elements in dealing with the potential conflict between potential development growth in deprived areas and the flood risk zones is contained in Annex G of PPS 25. The SPD should make more specific reference to the points contained in this Annex. proposals would do), overall sustainability (which should be the aim for all proposals), making the development safe (clearly important) and not increasing the flood risk of surrounding properties (also clearly important) Do not amend SPD Para 5.28 relates to what kind of sites should be considered as alternative sites therefore it is not a geographical comment. Previous guidance is provided on defining the area of search. Amend SPD to clarify that it relates to taken off the market Noted but national policy clearly requires the test be applied to individual applications unless they are in accordance with a development plan that has been prepared in accordance with PS25. As the UDP was prepared before PPS25 the test must be applied to individual applications. Amend SPD - Appendix on FRA - Para A4.4 sets out a requirement to look at residual risk, however the SPD could be amended so that the main body of the document under FRAs makes reference to Annex G. It should be noted that Para G1 of Annex G states, The risks remaining after applying the sequential approach and taking mitigating actions are known as the residual risks. It is the responsibility of those planning development to fully assess flood risk, propose measures to mitigate it and demonstrate that any residual risks can be safely managed. Flood resistance and resilience measures should not be used to justify development in inappropriate locations. (on (on Section 5F Section 5F Consideration should be given to the detail of potential development behind flood defences and in particular the standard of defence that is in place. Defences can be and have been maintained/improved to meet stricter tests in terms of potential depths of flooding and the potential effects of climate change. If the standard of defence is good then the level of risk is lowered somewhat. The residual risk should though be considered and considerations of potential overtopping or breach could be Whilst this appendix is important, it should clearly not be seen as overriding other requirements and in particular the sequential test. No amendment required - The annex on FRA addresses how to take account of flood defences. No amendment required - The annex on FRA addresses how to take account of flood defences, and the points raised can be considered

13 (on (on (on (on (on Section 5F Section 5F Section 5F Section 5F Overall considered. Other factors can also have a bearing, including the presence of other infrastructure that might act as secondary defences. This is particularly the case in Doncaster, where there are numerous canals and waterways as well as other structures on embankments, including roads, railways and sidings, and colliery spoil tips. Besides existing forms of defence there are other measures that can be delivered - either as part of forward planned strategic scale development or as part of individual development proposals - site specific flood defence systems and drainage systems to deal with residual risks and to manage flood waters in the event of a breach or overtopping. Development can bring with it potential contributions to flood defence works and/or the maintenance of defence/drainage systems. Flood resilience and resistance can be designed into new developments in these flood-defended areas. New flood warning and contingency plans can be factored in to new developments. New strategic scale development in deprived areas, which are already within flood risk areas, has the potential to bring a net benefit in flood risk terms. This benefit should be weighed as a positive in the planning balance and the SPD should take the opportunity to make this point. It is through investment and development that deprivation can be tackled as well as other issues that currently face these communities like flood risk. through individual FRAs. The SPD forms a framework for assessment but cannot take account of every eventuality. No amendment required - The annex on FRA addresses how to take account of these issues, and the points raised can be considered through individual FRAs. The SPD forms a framework for assessment but cannot take account of every eventuality. Amend SPD to reference this point, but to explain that it is not intended to cover developer contributions these will be addressed elsewhere. No amendment required - The annex on FRA addresses how to take account of these issues, and the points raised can be considered through individual FRAs. The SPD forms a framework for assessment but cannot take account of every eventuality. No amendment required - The annex on FRA addresses how to take account of these issues, and the points raised can be considered through individual FRAs. The SPD forms a framework for assessment but cannot take account of every eventuality. Noted the SPD National Policy sets out a sequential approach whereby development within flood risk areas needs to justify why it is required to be within a flood risk area and could not be in a lower risk area, but does not prevent it per se. Regional Policy identifies Doncaster Main Urban Area, Thorne and Mexborough as areas for growth. Event without this policy, local evidence base (in particular the Settlement Study) provides justification for growth in areas which, although at risk of flooding, are otherwise sustainable locations for developments. However, some of these settlements (such as Thorne and parts of the Main Urban Area) are largely within EA flood zones. Therefore to achieve a sustainable pattern of growth (and, at present, be in conformity with regional policy) development within flood risk areas is likely to be required. Therefore the SPD is in accordance with national and regional policy, and local evidence base. Furthermore, the SPD allows for the consideration of the characteristics of individual applications. However, all developments are expected to bring at least some economic, social or environmental benefits (otherwise would fail other policy). Therefore, the benefits referred to need to be significant and linked to local priorities.

14 (on White Young Green (on behalf of Miller Homes) White Young Green (on behalf of Miller Homes) White Young Green (on behalf of Miller Homes) White Young Green (on behalf of Miller Homes) White Young Green (on behalf of Miller Homes) Overall Objective 2 Objective 5 Section 5 We consider that an SPD on flood risk relating to Doncaster Borough is an opportunity to tackle important issues in a meaningful way by dealing with some of the more detailed matters that relate to areas that are classified as being at risk of flooding, but where growth/development could contribute to the reduction in that risk and the regeneration of deprived areas. We are not convinced that the emphasis on sequential testing in the draft document is that helpful in this regard. A more positive approach, that goes beyond the style and language of PPS 25 would be helpful both to local communities and developers. We welcome further support for the spatial pattern of future development, which is broadly reflective of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). We note that the emerging LDF (Core Strategy: Further Options DPD) identifies additional 'Principal Outlying Settlements', namely Adwick-le-Street/Woodlands, Armthorpe, Askern and Conisbrough. The role of these settlements in the Borough's future development strategy should be recognised in this objective along with Thorne and Mexborough. Notes the comments in the SPD in relation to new development providing opportunities to enhance flood defences, and to address localised drainage problems. Asks how financial contributions in relation to defences will be addressed. Welcomes the approach taken by DMBC in respect of clarifying, and providing detail on, the planning application assessment process. Suggests amending detail so that the fact that there are 6 potential Principal Towns in the emerging LDF is better reflected. We welcome DMBC's acknowledgement that there will in some circumstances be flexibility in applying the requirement to undertake a Sequential Test. On this matter, we welcome clarity from DMBC on the maximum size of the "small part of the site" which would allow such a site to be deemed exempt from the Sequential Test. Would welcome DMBC's views on circumstances in which sites that are partly located in Flood Zone 2 or 3, where no hard development is proposed on these areas and where there would be no increase to flood risk on the site or elsewhere, whether these could also be considered exempt from the Sequential Test. This would be in line with the philosophy behind DMBC's approach. Fairhurst Lafarge are in support of the principle that minerals workings Noted No amendment required the status, remit and purpose of SPD should be noted. The focus on SPD reflects the fact that the majority of inquiries and questions have focused on this area therefore the SPD has been drafted to reflect a clear need identified by our customers. The wider points mentioned may be valid but they are more properly points to be considered in the development of the wider LDF, and in particular the Core Strategy. See main body of report Amend SPD to explain that it is not intended to cover developer contributions these will be addressed elsewhere. See man body of report No amendment required this will depend on the nature of the proposal, size of the site etc. The SPD is only intended to provide a framework for working through the process and as such cannot cover every eventuality. No amendment required table 2 sets out how such proposals will be dealt with.

15 Consulting (on Lafarge) Fairhurst Consulting (on Lafarge) Fairhurst Consulting (on Lafarge) Fairhurst Consulting (on Lafarge) Fairhurst Consulting (on Lafarge) Overall can only be undertaken where they are found and, therefore, concur that the Sequential Test approach should not apply to such development (Paragraph 5.12, Table 2). Although the document is supportive of minerals workings, the SPD does not address the development of waste sites within the district. Lafarge considers that the restoration of minerals sites through landfill should be classified as water compatible development in the same manner as minerals sites and, therefore, should not require a sequential test. Nevertheless, Lafarge are fully aware of the other material considerations that need to be addressed when landfill is considered in certain locations in line with local, regional and national planning policy. Lafarge considers that if a minerals development has an existing consent or meets the Sequential Test the development is, therefore, acceptable in principle. Development which is essential to the functioning of the minerals site (classified as 'Other Minerals and Waste Development' under Paragraph Table 2) and within the sequentially preferable site, should not be subject to a site boundary defined Sequential Test as all flood risk matters should be appropriately dealt with by the Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment. Section B, paragraph 5.12 refers to minor development which is exempt from the Sequential Test. Whilst in agreement with the definition of minor development, in line with Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25), Lafarge consider that minor minerals and waste developments should be specified and suggest that more detailed guidance in relation to waste developments be provided within the SPD. Support and agree to the principles within the Development and Flood Risk Draft Supplementary Planning Document, however, do consider that the SPD should provide further guidance in relation to minerals and waste developments within Doncaster. No amendment required the proposed approach fundamentally departs from national policy No amendment required - Considering the relative flood risk within the boundary of the site is an approach clearly set out in PPS25 and the companion guide. However, clearly operational requirements and other considerations (such as landscaping and visual impact) will be relevant as to where the best place within the site is for such proposals. The SPD merely clarifies that considering which parts of the site are less likely to flood will be an important consideration. No amendment required - Minor development set out in table 2 is as set out in PPS25. It clarifies that references within the SPD to industrial development could be applied to waste developments that are potentially akin to industrial uses (i.e. not including landfill). Furthermore, table 2 allows for a site-limited area of search for proposals which are operationally linked to existing quarries or landfills No amendment required - The SPD cannot cover every eventuality and so focuses on the forms of developments that form the bulk of the applications at Doncaster. Given the relatively small number, whilst significant scale of most landfill and mineral extraction proposals a case-by-case approach would need to be agreed with the case officer, with the SPD providing the broad principles to inform this.

16 Appendix 2 Summary of Technical Comments Respondent & Organisation Friends of the Earth Planning Prospects Rapleys (on behalf of Dooba Investment Properties) Comment As a lay person the permitted run off from new sites of 5 litres/second/hectare seems high and will introduce additional loads on drainage. 1. Paragraph A3.1 - The text above this paragraph states that basic information to be submitted for all applications is - a Feasibility check for SUDS; a Flood Risk Assessment; and a Drainage Strategy. Paragraph A3.1 goes on to provide the System Criteria for those. a. Our Comment - We feel that it should be noted in the SPD that not all locations are suitable for SUDS due to high water tables and the document should ensure some flexibility as SUDS will not be possible on all sites. 2. Paragraph A3.3 - The SPD notes that there is no national guidance on surface water discharge rates from brownfield sites, other than Defra s preference for rates similar to the greenfield rate (specified as 5l/s/ha or a min 5l/s). a. Our Comment - Whilst noting Defra s "preference" each site should be considered on their own merits and relevant discharge rates should be agreed with Yorkshire Water and the Internal Drainage Boards but having regard to the current run off position. 3. Paragraph A3.5 - There is preference for vehicle accessible areas greater than 5 sq.m to have a permeable paving. There is a preference for car parking for 10 vehicles or more to be bound with a permeable paving or for filter strips to be used. a. Our Comment - We note this is stated as a preference in the draft planning document. The use of permeable paving may not be suitable to all sites and circumstances and therefore more flexibility is required. Re: APPENDIX 3 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DRAINAGE DESIGN AND FLOOD RISK Appendix Three provides a list of national guidance. We suggest that this list is extended to include the Code for Sustainable Homes Clarification is sought as to the source of Paragraph A3.1, bullet point 1, as the reference quoted as 'PPS25 paragraph 4.7' is incorrect. Clarification is also sought as to the source of bullet point 2, which incorrectly cites 'PPS25 Proposed Response 5 l/s/ha is a figure agreed with the EA based on the hydrogeology of the Doncaster area but is only the figure used in the Council s Operating Authority area. Other Operating Authorities within the Council s boundary (IDBs) specify there own greenfield run-off figure, usually dependent on pumping capacities of their respective maintained land drainage systems. Other SY local authorities similarly follow EA guidance. 1 st point: Amend paragraph 5.47 to read: Doncaster Council is particularly keen to promote the wider use of sustainable drainage systems within development, where it is practical and ground conditions are suitable. 1. SuDS are not all reliant on infiltration. Where ground conditions prevent infiltration, attenuation (storage) should be considered. Flexibility is addressed by the surface water drainage discharge prioritisation i.e. 1 soakaway, 2 watercourse, 3 public sewer. 2. Defra s preference is supported by the Council. If brownfield sites can prove an existing discharge then a 30% reduction of the proven existing discharge would be considered by the Council in line with EA/SY guidance. 3. The intention of the guidance with respect to car parking for more than 10 vehicles is to focus the developer s attention on possible SuDS solutions, which are not all related to infiltration, rather than oil interceptors Add reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes References should read (PPS 25, Practical Guidance 5.51 & PPS 25, Practical Guidance 5.54-updated December 2009). The figure of 5l/s/ha is based on EA guidance for the DMBC area. The Council would presumably agree with site specific EA figures. 16