Preferred Options for Sites

Comment

Representation ID: 64866

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

The Environment Agency concurs with the approach of steering sites away from flood risk areas. Also concerned that sites are able to manage foul drainage sustainably.

A precautionary approach must be adopted, even for sites with planning permission and the NPPF requires a sequential approach with regard to determining suitable locations against flood risk.

Permanent caravans are highly vulnerable to the effects of flooding and are only appropriate in the lowest flood risk areas (Zone 1) or Zone 2 if the Exceptions Test is applied. Sites in Zone 3 would be contrary to national policy.

Additional work will be required for any sites close to a flood plain.

The preferred option should be sites that allow foul waters to drain to the public main foul sewer. Non-mains drainage options should pose the minimum level of risk of pollution. Package treatment plants (owned and managed by the Council) will be necessary for non-main drainage sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 65591

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Any application would require a Preliminary Risk Assessment to assess the possible impact of contamination on water receptors.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.

Comment

Representation ID: 65592

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Any application would require a Preliminary Risk Assessment to assess the possible impact of contamination on water receptors.

Site will need a non- public foul mains sewer solution. The site should not drain to the south because of the potential impact on the water environment which already has high levels of phosphates.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.

The local wildlife trust and county ecologist should be consulted about potential impacts on ditches, watercourses, Whitnash Brook and Warwickshire Habitat Alert Sites.

Flood risk from alluvial sources is unlikely now the site has been reduced in size but any development must have regard to surface water flooding and localised ponding.

Comment

Representation ID: 65593

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Any application would require a Preliminary Risk Assessment to assess the possible impact of contamination on water receptors.

Site is unlikely to connect to the foul mains sewer. The nearest water body for discharge is therefore the Tach Brook but it is failing in its objectives due to high phosphate levels. The site is therefore not desirable due to its impact on the water environment.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.

Comment

Representation ID: 65594

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site is underlain by Bromsgrove Sandstone formation, which is a principle aquifer. The site is also within a Source Protection zone 3 for potable water supply borehole. The site is therefore highl;y sensitive in groundwater protection terms.

Previous and current uses are likely to have caused ground contamination. Although there is no objection in principle to development, any application will require detailed investigations to assess the impact of any contamination on ground waters. This will determine the need for a risk assessment and remediation.

Site will need a non- public foul mains sewer solution. Because of the sensitive water environment an additional assessment would be required to assess ground drainage options/risks.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.

Comment

Representation ID: 65595

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Any application would require a Preliminary Risk Assessment to assess the possible impact of contamination on water receptors.

Treated foul effluent from non-mains systems would discharge to Gog Brook which is failing its targets on invertebrates and phosphates. Further discharges of nutrient rich material are not appropriate. A connection to the existing foul sewer serving the housing opposite may be possible and should be explored and this site only brought forward if less sensitive sites are unsuitable.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.

The eastern part of the site falls within Flood Zone 3 of the Gog Brook. The site could only be brought forward if the site boundary were redrawn to exclude the land within the mapped floodplain.

Comment

Representation ID: 65596

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Any application would require a Preliminary Risk Assessment to assess the possible impact of contamination on water receptors.

Site will need a non- public foul mains sewer solution and would be likely to drain to an unnamed tributary of the River Avon. Although this may be acceptable the site is less desirable than one that can connect to the public sewer but is more desirable than sites which drain to the Tach Brook.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.

Flood risk from alluvial sources is unlikely now the site has been reduced in size but any development must have regard to surface water flooding and localised ponding.

Comment

Representation ID: 65597

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Any application would require a Preliminary Risk Assessment to assess the possible impact of contamination on water receptors.

Site will need a non- public foul mains sewer solution and would be likely to drain to an unnamed tributary of the River Avon. Although this may be acceptable the site is less desirable than one that can connect to the public sewer but is more desirable than sites which drain to the Tach Brook.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.

Flood risk from alluvial sources is unlikely now the site has been reduced in size but any development must have regard to surface water flooding and localised ponding.

Comment

Representation ID: 65598

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Any application would require a Preliminary Risk Assessment to assess the possible impact of contamination on water receptors.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.

Site is unlikely to connect to the foul mains sewer. The nearest water body for discharge is therefore the Grand Union Canal. Most canals are nutrient rich so further inputs of phosphates containing effluent are unwelcome. The site is therefore not desirable in terms of its impact on the water environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 65599

Received: 12/05/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

The Environment Agency would not recommend this site.

Large parts of the site lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The flood risk mechanism is complicated and a detailed assessment is required to determine if the site is suitable for development for this more vulnerable use.

Given the number of alternative sites with a lower risk of flooding this site should be discounted.

The site is underlain by Mercia Mudstone which is in turn overlain by Alluvium.

The former landfill use means there is potential for contamination beneath the site. Any proposals involving infiltration drainage will be objected to by the Agency.

If the development/flood risk issues can be overcome detailed site investigations would need to assess the impact of land contamination on controlled water receptors. This will determine the need for risk assessment and remediation works.

A suitable means of dealing with foul effluent will be required.