Object

Representation ID: 125

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

Absolutely NO to building anywhere that may present a flood risk - however low that may be. The disastrous effect of building on flood planes is clear to see - no more.

Support

Representation ID: 686

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Jelson Homes Ltd

The policy is supported in principal but clarification is needed as to when the sequential test should apply. It should be made clear that a sequential test will only be required where flood sensitive development is actually proposed within the relevant flood zones. I.e. a sequential test should not be required where the red line of the application site includes flood zones but where the use of those areas is only for open space, BNG or other non flood sensitive development.

Object

Representation ID: 1055

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

Should be located nowhere, it’s not needed.

Support

Representation ID: 1116

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Paragraph 1 and 2 of this policy set out that where new development is proposed within high risk flood areas a sequential test is required. Persimmon Homes are of the view that this policy needs to acknowledge that such an assessment is not required if the site is an allocation within the Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 1305

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

Bourne and surrounding communities are included in the Project Groundwater initiative managed by the Environment Agency and funded by DEFRA. The project aims to develop a greater understanding of groundwater and how it can be managed both in terms of flood risk and as a resource. While the project is expected to take several years to complete, it could have implications for development and inform future thinking on how groundwater challenges are approached. Reference should therefore be made to Project Groundwater in the text associated with the policy.

Support

Representation ID: 1387

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

We support this policy, in particular the requirements for the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) and to maximise the use of green infrastructure and natural flood management.

Woods and trees should form an integral part of all Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). Planting trees as part of sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) can slow the flow of water and reduce surface water runoff by up to 62% compared to asphalt.

Object

Representation ID: 1752

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

Learning the lessons from Storms Henk and Babet, surface water management is of paramount importance. Water management needs to be appropriately considered on all allocated sites before they come forward as an application. Unless appropriate and sufficient mitigation is in place, LCC will object to the planning applications.

Object

Representation ID: 1763

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Linda Wootten

Bloor Homes are planning to build between the Eatch Estate and the Barracks ,this area is very much subject to natural springs . My concerns are regarding building in such environments for instance on upper Harrowby Lane beneath the reservoir, planning was refused locally for housing on the hillside due to the unstable landscape, there are problems in this area with runoffs from the land.
There is infill of three bungalows at 256 Harrowby Lane where the developer has had to pipe off water cascading through the site onto the Highway to go into the drainage system. I do believe topography and local knowledge should be given due consideration along with the environment agency views . I have houses in my Division that are built in a flood plain ,literally next to the Withambrook which subsequently became the subject of a sec􀆟on 19 report. Other concerns are land banking and making sure 106 conditions are honoured.

Object

Representation ID: 1808

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

Paragraph 4 of this policy should state that SUDS should be designed in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act and any other relevant legislation. This should include that an active management regime is in place, and that multiple benefits from the design of the SuDS has been sort. The policy should also refer to the role of nature-based solutions in flood management at a wider catchment scale. Promoting their use over more traditional ‘grey’ infrastructure where appropriate and feasible. Suggested wording:
“Within South Kesteven it is recognised that issues relating to reducing flood risk and addressing other problems, such as poor water quality, can be addressed through nature-based solutions. Where appropriate natural flood management, water polishing habitats, increasing carbon capture through restoring natural floodplain connections with riparian corridors, should be sort as a more holistic, integrated approach to water resource and level management. The catchment-based approach (CaBA) is now nationally accepted best way forward and there are partnerships for all catchments within South Kesteven that can support through the expertise within them.”

Object

Representation ID: 1913

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Proposes revised wording of Policy EN5 for greater clarity.

Whilst we are waiting for the SFRA to be completed, development in areas of flood risk must be designed to ensure they are safe for their lifetime (this is mentioned in
supporting text, but not in Policy EN5). Development should be steered away from Flood Zones 2 and 3 where possible and maintain access to ‘main river’ water courses. Good, sustainable design which can adapt to climate change must consider flood risk and ensuring development will stay safe for its lifetime and not increase flood risk elsewhere. Any development taking place with 8 metres of the bank of a main river, or 16 metres if it is a tidal main river may require a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016. Further information can be found at Flood risk activities: environmental permits - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Support

Representation ID: 1925

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Bettinson Trust

Agent: Savills

We support draft policy EN5 as written.

Support

Representation ID: 1929

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

We understand that the Council is preparing a revised Flood Risk Assessment and Water Cycle study. We would recommend further consultation with the Trust as part of the Water Cycle study to ensure that all evidence is available on our networks contribution to water supply, transfer, drainage and flood management within the district.

Object

Representation ID: 2137

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership, Natural England and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

It is felt that paragraph 4 of this policy should state that SUDS should be designed in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act and any other relevant legislation.
The policy should also refer to the role of nature-based solutions in flood management at a wider catchment scale. Promoting their use where appropriate and feasible.

Support

Representation ID: 2332

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Policy EN5 sets out requirements to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of flooding. Whilst there is no mention of allowing for discharging surface water to highway drains, we would like to highlight with respect of sites adjacent to the SRN that discharge of surface water to National Highway drainage would not be permitted (with reference to DfT Circular 01/2022 paragraph 59).

Object

Representation ID: 2335

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Claypole Parish Council

The Parish Council considers that Policy EN5 of the Local Plan Review is unsound, and it fails to meet the test of soundness relating to the tests of ‘justified’, ‘effective’ and ‘consistent with national policy’.

This policy as currently written is inconsistent with national policy set out in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance in relation to when a Flood Risk Assessment is required and in relation to when the Sequential and Exception Tests apply.

As a Parish, Claypole has flood risk present from fluvial (river) and surface water sources. The River Witham presents fluvial flood risk to the western side of the Parish including the Claypole Bridge area. The wider Parish and the main village have significant areas at risk of surface water flooding, including much of the eastern end of the village. This risk of surface water flooding is particularly important given the nature of the underlying clay, as such it is imperative that the Local Plan approach towards flood risk reflects national policy fully. Our full concerns are explained in the attached technical paper.

Object

Representation ID: 2536

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands

Agent: Savills

DWH object to policy EN5. The policy should ensure it makes it clear that the sequential test is only required for sites not allocated. Paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF states that ‘plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how the decision maker should react to development proposals’.