Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Comment

Representation ID: 29191

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

We recommend the inclusion of the following additional bullet point / paragraph within the Biodiversity & Development section of the policy wording:

“As well as assessing area-based (terrestrial) habitats, the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric includes two distinct supplementary modules for linear habitats (A: Hedgerows and lines of tress & B: Rivers and streams). Development proposals must be supported by evidence to demonstrate the achievement of measurable biodiversity net gains in each of the individual habitat types present within the proposed site regardless of likely adverse impacts. The biodiversity units calculated through the core habitat area-based metric and each of the supplementary linear-based modules are unique and cannot be summed or converted. When reporting biodiversity gains or losses with the metric, the different biodiversity unit types must be reported separately and not summed to give an overall biodiversity unit value”.

This reasoning is to ensure that the policy wording is in line with the latest Biodiversity Metric guidance. It is also to ensure that linear habitat types (e.g. hedgerows & river and streams) are included, not omitted, from BNG assessments.

Comment

Representation ID: 29202

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Currently without the SFRA the proposed allocations are not technically evidenced in line with point 1 of EN7 yet.

Comment

Representation ID: 29203

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

-A, Point 2: …should add “for the lifetime of the development” to this section. This should be made clear that lifetime of development applies in ALL flood risk considerations.
-A, Point 4: We support, but would suggest that further wording is included on seeking betterment where possible.
-A, Point 5: This clause in the policy seems to exclude the essential infrastructure and water compatible development in flood zone 3b. This should be included in some form as the requirements will also apply to these types of development. This should therefore refer to 3b development or have a separate clause to deal with this due to the stringent requirements (such as no loss of 3b). Given the nature of flooding, this will likely be a key conversation topic in the SFRA with the removal of 3a(i). Further development of the policy in regard to flood zone 3b will be required following the completion of the SFRA. This would need to also include dealing with development already within 3b.
-A, Point 6: We support the inclusion of this point within the policy. It is currently quite vague without the SFRA evidence to support it and may need to be reviewed at that point in terms of areas allocated for safeguarding.
-A, Point 7: Further clarity could be provided regarding what is meant by managing and reducing ‘beck corridors’. We support opportunities to seek betterment and these should always be sought. This should be widened beyond just NFM and culvert opening. Please also see further points raised below.
-A, Point 9: This section needs to be clearer that there should be no ‘increase runoff’ from sites so as to support prevention of cumulative impacts of development on flood risk. This is mentioned in the Greenfield sites section but not in brownfield sites section, we would also recommend changing the wording for Greenfield to say ‘no increase’ instead of ‘no change’ as discharge should be reduced where possible.
-A, Point 10: We are unclear on what is meant by a separate system. This should be clarified in the policy wording.
There is currently no mention of residual risk within the policy. This will be another expected change following the SFRA Update. Residual risk should be clarified and included within the policy explicitly.
-We encourage a section to be included regrading developer contributions being sought for flood risk management projects, including natural flood management.
Our other comments for this policy include:
-We support paragraph A 7 and the recognition of the need to enhance value for wildlife and increase biodiversity. We suggest adding the wording “and working with natural processes”, and “helps to achieve Biodiversity Net Gain”.
-We are supportive of the paragraphs 12, 13 relating to Green Infrastructure provision and natural flood management.
-We recommend a change in wording for A 14.
Only support the use of culverting for ordinary water courses, and additional flood defence works that could have adverse impacts on the environment, in exceptional circumstances.
-This paragraph isn’t clear. It implies that the Council would allow or carry out flood defence works that will result in an overall negative impact on the environment. We suggest a clear statement that gives a presumption against culverting of any watercourses, In terms of impacts on the environment from flood defence works, this also needs a clear statement that flood risk projects will achieve an overall net gain for the environment and for biodiversity. This is in line with the EA’s Flood Risk Strategy, and the other Bradford Local Plan policy statements about BNG, and enhancing Green and Blue Infrastructure. Flood Defence works that have an adverse impact on the environment should not take place, and Flood Defence works should follow the mitigation hierarchy set out in section EN2 and figure 4.26.1 (Avoid, Mitigate, Compensate, Offset, Enhance) such that the works result in an overall environmental improvement.
-Flood Defence works that require planning permission will need to demonstrate 10% Biodiversity Net Gain in line with anticipated Environment Bill.
-SuDS should be carried out in line with the groundwater protection position statements found in the document ‘The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection’

Support

Representation ID: 29235

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

We support the current content of Policy EN9 – particularly the references to enhancement of water courses natural geomorphology.

Comment

Representation ID: 29237

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

However, we also recommend the inclusion of additional wording (underlined) within the Water Quality section of the policy so that it reads:

“The Council will work with developers and partner organisations to:
 safeguard ground and surface water resources, including protecting Source Protection Zones from contamination;
 ensure no deterioration in the status of water courses or any water bodies occurs;
 ensure that development does not jeopardise any water body from achieving its Water Framework Directive objective of 'good' status; and
 protect and improve water quality.
Proposals for development will only be acceptable where there is no adverse impact on surface water bodies and groundwater resources, in terms of their quantity, quality and the important ecological features they support.
Proposals for development will be supported where they:
 make positive progress towards achieving 'good status or potential' under the Water Framework Directive for surface and groundwater bodies.
 enhance the natural geomorphology of watercourses, including through the opening up of culverts, and the removal of modifications made as part of past industrial uses (e.g. removal or modification of weirs to address fish passage), or and through the restoration of man-made channels.
 manage water demand and improve water efficiency through the use of appropriate measures including rainwater harvesting and grey-water recycling.
 include measures which help to reduce the potential for, or mitigate against water shortages or drought”.

Comment

Representation ID: 29238

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

We also recommend including the following additions regarding watercourse buffer zones and a presumption against new culverts.

Watercourse buffer zones:
All watercourses and their riparian corridors / floodplains provide excellent networks of blue and green infrastructure and should be protected and enhanced to provide multiple benefits (e.g. increased biodiversity, natural flood management, carbon sequestration etc.). There should be un-development buffer zones of at least 10 m along main river and ordinary watercourses. These buffer zones will allow the creation and management of wildlife corridors to protect and enhance green and blue infrastructure.

Culverting:

We would suggest including a presumption against installing new culverts on watercourses.

This is in line with the Environment Agency’s Internal Policy 169_19 Culverting Watercourses which states: “(The Environment Agency) are opposed to the culverting of any watercourse because of the adverse ecological, flood risk, geomorphological, human safety and aesthetic impacts. Watercourses are important linear features of the landscape and should be maintained as continuous corridors to maximise their benefits to society”.

We would also suggest that where new developments are to be located over an existing culvert, the presumption should be that de-culverting and opening up the watercourse should be always be the first option. Opportunities to re-naturalise watercourses should always be considered as part of developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 29240

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

We also support the reference to the WFD and its objectives within Policy EN9. In the post-Brexit climate, we also feel it is important to highlight that the WFD is transposed into law in England and Wales by The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017. We recommend that this information is included within a supporting paragraph to Policy EN9.

References to WFD are welcome, particularly the reference to not jeopardising our ability to reach ‘good’ status which is the ultimate aim of the legislation. We have provided further detail for consideration below these comments under the title ‘Water quality’ and ‘Water Framework Directive’ and have provided an updated WFD map with the current Ecological status of the District’s river water bodies.

Comment

Representation ID: 29241

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Finally, within the supporting text 4.33.1 – 4.33.4, this should also refer to NPPF paragraphs 170 and 178. The policy should also refer to the relevant EA guidance and promote the use of the National Quality Mark Scheme for Land Contamination Management which involves the use of competent persons to ensure that land contamination risks are appropriately managed. The policy may like to refer to the contaminated land pages on GOV.UK for advice and guidance.
Development proposals on contaminated land, or where previous land use may indicate some level of contamination, must include an assessment of the extent of contamination and any possible risks. An assessment should include;
 Ensuring sites are suitable for the intended use;
 Applying a risk based approach to assessing land contamination;
 An assessment of the risk to surface water and groundwater (controlled waters) receptors from land contamination.
 The requirement for remediation / mitigation to reduce unacceptable risks to the environment, if required

Comment

Representation ID: 29243

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

The hierarchy of locations for development seems reasonable. We would suggest that surrounding land use is just as relevant as the development site itself. Expanding existing sites as well as development of new sites could present a host of problems in relation to off-site effects if in proximity to residential or other sensitive receptors – specifically in relation to amenity (dust, noise, odour) and impact of any incidents such as fire.
Please also note our comments below under ‘Development adjacent to regulated sites’ for additional information.

This section references minimising the impact of climate change. Does this include imposing a requirement for waste management developments to have plans for preventing impacts from materials held on their sites in the event of a flood or other extreme weather incident?
Under point 13D of the policy it states ‘For new or expanded hazardous waste management sites, it should be demonstrated that it could be processed at an existing facility within the district….’

Should this be read could NOT be processed at an existing facility.

Comment

Representation ID: 29244

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Construction waste can be problematic in ensuring that it is handled in accordance with all relevant legislation, correct reference to the legislation is recommended and consideration of how the council can influence this is in a practical way.

We would encourage policies that seek to reduce the amount of construction and demolition waste. (This links to reducing primary aggregate demand and increasing secondary aggregate use in minerals planning).
We would encourage policies that encourage good site management and on site waste management plans.