SW23/H - Northside Road, Girlington

Support

Representation ID: 24608

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gleeson Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group (Leeds)

-The site is at ‘very low’ risk of surface water flooding.
-Not located within a conservation area and does not contain any listed buildings.
-Extensive development within the land surrounding these assets - now located in a firmly modern context within no legibility of their historic surroundings. It is not considered that the proposed development will cause harm to the significance of these heritage assets through changes within their wider surroundings.
-NPPF(para 68) seeks to promote the development of a good mix of sites. The site would provide a modest amount of growth of approximately 60 no. dwellings.
- A stage 2 site investigation has been undertaken. Abnormal costs to development arising from the ground conditions are understood. The site is deliverable, and our client is keen to progress as soon as possible, which will assist in delivering 5-year housing land supply. It is not necessary for the development to be placed in a later phase of the plan.
-Site is identified as a playing pitch under Policy OS4 (RUDP), however has not been in active sports use for over 10 years.
-Site has been subject of previous planning permissions for residential development, dating from the early/mid 1990's. Given the site’s proximity to an area of recreation open space located adjacent to the site, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any deficiency in the locale.
-Site is deliverable for housing and our client is committed to bringing forward the development opportunity.
-Site will make a significant contribution to the overall housing requirement in a suitable and sustainable urban location.

Comment

Representation ID: 28916

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

If the site is considered Greenfield then surface water discharge rates post development should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield discharge rate. If the site is considered Brownfield then there should be a 30% reduction in surface water discharges, or restricted to Greenfield rates, there should be no increase in brownfield surface water discharge rates post development. So as to support prevention of cumulative increases to flood risk and should be in line with SuDs design principles.

For developments near ordinary watercourses we would recommend an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts, to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. A Flood Defence Consent may be required for the LLFA for works in/affecting an ordinary watercourse.

For main rivers, we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Environmental Flood Risk Activity Permits may be required for development near rivers.

It is possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.