KY44/H - Parson Street

Comment

Representation ID: 28685

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.

Object

Representation ID: 29407

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Eastwood House in Victoria Park, a Grade II Listed Building, is located 100 metres north of the site. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset. Whilst the park is undoubtedly part of the setting to Eastwood House it is not mentioned in the list description for this building. The pro forma for this site incorrectly refers to Grade II Listed Building north-west of the site as Victoria Park. This should be corrected so as to avoid any confusion. Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a reference to the proximity of this designated heritage asset as a Constraint in the sites pro forma, the first bullet point under the Development Considerations for this
site needs to be amended to correct the title of the heritage asset.
In addition, the Council should consider whether any of the buildings and structures on the site should be classified as nondesignated heritage assets and retained as part of its development.
Correct the references made in the site pro forma to the designated heritage asset north-west of the site from
‘Victoria Park’ to ‘Eastwood House in Victoria Park’