CT7 Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourse/St Mary's Lands

The plan requires any development to be sensitive to Warwick's Heritage assets.

The preferred option for development within Hampton Magna overlooks the Racecourse and will be highly visible from the main stand.

Any development must protect and enhance the setting of the Racecourse.

The preferred option will detract from the setting of the Racecourse.

Part of CT7, in particular that relating to Warwick Racecourse/St. Mary's Lands, seeks to introduce into formal Warwick District Council policy, (in relation to the "Masterplan" mentioned which is not available to read), a concept that has not yet been put to the general public, this as the promised "public consultation" has not yet taken place. It also seems to allow the New Local Plan to override the previously agreed, (after public consultation), policy now in place for St. Mary's Lands, and possibly an existing Act of Parliament, the Warwick District Council Act 1984. CT7 therefore, (in relation to St. Mary's Lands), should be altered to exclude any reference to Warwick Racecourse for the following reasons:
The "Masterplan" as Mentioned: This is a document not yet available for viewing by the public, (although there is a Report prepared on behalf of Warwick Racecourse, a tenant of WDC, which might be used as a prototype), and hence not released to WDC ratepayers and probably not to all WDC elected councillors. If the new "Masterplan" is based on the aspirations of one WDC tenant, without first giving all WDC elected councillors the opportunity to comment, it would be disrespectful to those elected councillors. (Para. 3.1.42 specifically states that the "Masterplan" is to "ensure the ongoing vitality and viability of the Racecourse"). Such a clause, if based on the Warwick Racecourse wishes, could place the requirements of a WDC tenant above, (and possibly to the detriment of), that of WDC ratepayers. The current wording therefore includes a commitment to something not yet produced, and thus seems inappropriate for inclusion in The Local Plan. It is requested that references to the as yet unpublished "Masterplan" be removed.
The Warwick District Council Act 1984: No mention in CT7 of the New Local Plan is made of the 1984 Act of Parliament, (and accompanying Definitive Map), which is the legal documentation currently in force relating to how St. Mary's Lands should be used. From some previews of parts of a possible "Masterplan", it seems possible that implementation of some of the schemes intended would contravene the 1984 Act. By replacing the term "Masterplan" with "Warwick District Council Act 1984" that current legislation would be used.
Possible Pre-determination of a Future Planning Application: Para 3.1.42 also includes "visitor accommodation", (not specifically included in the 1984 Act), alongside items such as recreation, leisure and horse racing which are. This clause could leave WDC open to accusations that they are pre-determining any future planning application for the building of "visitor accommodation" on the land. Therefore, such a reference should be excluded so that any such future planning application can be considered on its own merits and not be influenced by a WDC policy document.

1. The proposal seems to be unlawful, for example but not limited to
-contrary to the Warwick District Council Act 1984
-the process for developing the Masterplan being contrary to Nolan principles.

2.The proposal seems to be contrary to existing planning policies, for example but not limited to
-the open space on St Marys Lands is a County Wildlife Site
-the buildings on St Marys Lands are in a Conservation Area.

Objections to CT7, (Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourse/St. Mary's Lands), of WDC-New Local Plan May 2014
We have just been able to have a glance of the WDC-New Local Plan, May 2014. The possible Pre-determination of a Future Planning Application: Para 3.142 includes "visitor accommodation", alongside items such as recreation, leisure and horse racing. This clause could give the Racecourse a pre-determining future approved planning application for the building of "visitor accommodation" on the land, e.g. a hotel. Therefore, such a reference should be excluded so that any such future planning application can be considered on its own merits and not be influenced by a WDC policy document. The building of a hotel there has so many effects and implications that have already been outlined several times to WDC and we do not want to go through them once again here. The main point of our objection is " the reference to visitor accommodation in 3.142 in the CT7 camping and Caravan sites", this must be removed from this document.

I wish to raise a number of objections to CT7 in the Local Plan.


First I think it is a mistake to link Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourse into one clause, as they are so different.

Warwick Castle is privately owned and has 800000+ visitors, half from outside the West Midlands and employs more than 250 FT staff, open daily.

Whilst Warwick Racecourse only has a short lease on part of a public asset, will in 2014 only have 16 days of racing, has a max of 30000 visitors according to published data ( in a good year), all from the West Midlands and only employs about 9 FT staff.

There are therefore far more important visitor attractions in WDC area yet they do not warrant a separate clause in the Local Plan?

Perhaps it would be better to have a general clause dealing with publicly owned parks in warwick district and include within it St Mary Lands? Given the planned for rapid population growth, surely the need for free access to recreation spaces such as parkland is essential for public health , well being and recreation. I suggest all identified in the recent topen space audit carried out by WDC are included and listed as areas of planning restraint where development would only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

In earlier consultations ( town centre plan) the general public was asked if Warwick Racecourse should be treated as a special planning case and this was rejected by an overwhelming majority, so it is bizarre that it has reappeared at a late stage into the local plan?

I note this clause does not seem to have been discussed with either the Town Council or Ward Councillors for Warwick West.

More specific objections to CT7:

St Mary Lands already has a comprehensive management plan from 2005, there is no explanation why a new "master plan" is required, or why it should be part of the Local Plan, or how it will be constructed, or why a single tenant ( whose tenancy runs out before the end of the local plan) is being given a privileged position on input? Or how the obvious conflicts of interest this could create would be mitigated?

In 3.142 should not all users of St Mary Lands be part of the input into a new "master plan" as they were in drafting of the current plan?

Why is "visitor accommodation" mentioned there isn't any presently on St Mary Lands and a proposed hotel was rejected by the planning committee as the site was unsuitable, and the applicant did not use their right of appeal?
This therefore appears to be a form of predetermination and undermines the Council's own planning committee decision from 2012, without out any justification?
There is no shortage of hotels in Warwick District or in Warwick with a recent large hotel opening within 1 mile of this site and planning permission for 120 bedroom one beside Morrison's which has not yet been built. Further budget hotels would in fact damage the visitor economy , and lead to smaller hotels and guest house closing. ( The Jockey Club in objecting to the Premier Inn stated there was no enough demand for more than one large budget hotel in Warwick). Evidence at planning was presented demonstrating that additional hotels were merely likely to be part of an economic substitution effect. Therefore why is the District Council wishing to favour one private potential operator over existing businesses?
If the council is committed to "economic vitality" of the visitor accommodation sector, surely any master plan for St Mary Lands which includes a controversial hotel should seek to examine the likely economic impact on existing businesses. If not why are the needs of the Jockey Club rather than local independent businesses felt to be of more importance to WDC?
Given that many local hotels have closed or might be in economic difficulty, should there not be a clause in the local plan stating that no additional large hotels ( more than 50 bedrooms) would be permitted without an economic impact study?

CT7 mentions economic vitality of the racecourse, yet all the published public evidence in the form of a BHA report on Horse Racing and the Jockey Club accounts demonstrates five years of record profits and turnover. What evidence has been presented of pressing economic need to hand over areas of public park to Jockey Club control - given Jockey Club is already making record profits ( and does not publish the data or accounts for Warwick Racecourse which does not appear to be managed as a separate unit, but is rather a subsidiary of Cheltenham Racecourse)?

There is no mention of the Warwick District Council Act 1984, half of which specifically deals with St Mary Lands, this omission is bizarre. Some of the proposals in CT7 appear to be in conflict with the Act of Parliament - specifically the requirement to keep 25 hectares undeveloped and available for public access and recreation.

I suggest an additional line that no development or masterplan would be allowed which was in conflict with the Warwick District Council Act 1984, might solve the issue?

St Mary Lands already has a comprehensive management plan from 2005, there
is no explanation why a new "master plan" is required, or why it should
be part of the Local Plan, or how it will be constructed, or why a single
tenant ( whose tenancy runs out before the end of the local plan) is being
given a privileged position on input? Or how the obvious conflicts of
interest this could create would be mitigated?
Perhaps it would be better to have a general clause dealing with publicly
owned parks in warwick district and include within it St Mary Lands? Given
the planned for rapid population growth, surely the need for free access to
recreation spaces such as parkland is essential for public health , well
being and recreation. I suggest all identified in the recent topen space
audit carried out by WDC are included and listed as areas of planning
restraint where development would only be allowed in exceptional
circumstances.

In earlier consultations ( town centre plan) the general public was asked
if Warwick Racecourse should be treated as a special planning case and this
was rejected by an overwhelming majority, so it is bizarre that it has
reappeared at a late stage into the local plan?

In 3.142 should not all users of St Mary Lands be part of the input into a
new "master plan" as they were in drafting of the current plan?

Why is "visitor accommodation" mentioned there isn't any presently on
St Mary Lands and a proposed hotel was rejected by the planning committee
as the site was unsuitable, and the applicant did not use their right of
appeal?
This therefore appears to be a form of predetermination and undermines the
Council's own planning committee decision from 2012, without out any
justification?
There is no shortage of hotels in Warwick District or in Warwick with a
recent large hotel opening within 1 mile of this site and planning
permission for 120 bedroom one beside Morrison's which has not yet been
built. Further budget hotels would in fact damage the visitor economy , and
lead to smaller hotels and guest house closing. ( The Jockey Club in
objecting to the Premier Inn stated there was no enough demand for more
than one large budget hotel in Warwick). Evidence at planning was presented
demonstrating that additional hotels were merely likely to be part of an
economic substitution effect. Therefore why is the District Council wishing
to favour one private potential operator over existing businesses?
If the council is committed to "economic vitality" of the visitor
accommodation sector, surely any master plan for St Mary Lands which
includes a controversial hotel should seek to examine the likely economic
impact on existing businesses. If not why are the needs of the Jockey Club
rather than local independent businesses felt to be of more importance to
WDC?
Given that many local hotels have closed or might be in economic
difficulty, should there not be a clause in the local plan stating that no
additional large hotels ( more than 50 bedrooms) would be permitted without
an economic impact study?

CT7 mentions economic vitality of the racecourse, yet all the published
public evidence in the form of a BHA report on Horse Racing and the Jockey
Club accounts demonstrates five years of record profits and turnover. What
evidence has been presented of pressing economic need to hand over areas
of public park to Jockey Club control - given Jockey Club is already
making record profits ( and does not publish the data or accounts for
Warwick Racecourse which does not appear to be managed as a separate unit,
but is rather a subsidiary of Cheltenham Racecourse)?

There is no mention of the Warwick District Council Act 1984, half of which
specifically deals with St Mary Lands, this omission is bizarre. Some of
the proposals in CT7 appear to be in conflict with the Act of Parliament
- specifically the requirement to keep 25 hectares undeveloped and
available for public access and recreation.

I suggest an additional line that no development or masterplan would be
allowed which was in conflict with the Warwick District Council Act 1984,
might solve the issue?

I wish to raise an objection to the content of section CT7 in the Local Plan.
St Mary Lands already has a comprehensive management plan that was agreed in 2005.
A new "Master Plan "is therefore not required for St Mary Land.
Please see attached representation

I wish to raise a number of objections to CT7 in the Local Plan.

1: it is a mistake to link Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourse into one clause, as they are so different. Warwick Castle is privately owned and has 800000+ visitors, half from outside the West Midlands and employs more than 250 FT staff, open daily. In contrast, Warwick Racecourse is only a short lease on part of a public asset, will in 2014 only have 16 days of racing, has a max of 30000 visitors according to published data ( in a good year), all from the West Midlands and only employs about 9 FT staff.

There are therefore far more important visitor attractions in WDC area yet they do not warrant a separate clause in the Local Plan?

Perhaps it would be better to have a general clause dealing with publicly owned parks in Warwick district and include within it St Mary Lands? Furthermore, given the planned for rapid population growth, surely the need for free access to recreation spaces such as parkland is essential for public health, well being and recreation. I suggest all identified in the recent open space audit carried out by WDC are included and listed as areas of planning
restraint where development would only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

In earlier consultations ( town centre plan) the general public was asked if Warwick Racecourse should be treated as a special planning case and this was rejected by an overwhelming majority, so it appears inconsistent and illogical that it has
reappeared at a late stage into the local plan?

I note this clause does not seem to have been discussed with either the Town Council or Ward Councillors for Warwick West.

More specific objections to CT7:

St Mary Lands already has a comprehensive management plan from 2005, and there is no explanation why a new "master plan" is required, or why it should
be part of the Local Plan, or how it will be constructed, or why a single
tenant (whose tenancy runs out before the end of the local plan) is being given a privileged position on input? Or how the obvious conflicts of interest this could create would be mitigated?

In 3.142, surely all users of St Mary Lands should be part of the input into a new "master plan" as they were in drafting of the current plan?

Why is "visitor accommodation" mentioned when there is none presently on St Mary Lands and furthermore, a proposed hotel was rejected by the planning committee
as the site was unsuitable, and the applicant did not use their right of
appeal? This assertion therefore appears to be a form of predetermination and undermines the Council's own planning committee decision from 2012, a change seemingly without out any
justification?
There is no shortage of hotels in Warwick District or in Warwick, and a large hotel opened recently within 1 mile of this site and planning permission granted for 120 bedroom one beside Morrison's which has not yet been
built. Further budget hotels would in fact damage the visitor economy , and lead to smaller hotels and guest house closing. (The Jockey Club when objecting to the Premier Inn stated that there was not adequate demand for more than one large budget hotel in Warwick). Evidence at planning was presented demonstrating that additional hotels were merely likely to be part of an economic substitution effect. Therefore, given the inconsistencies with past decisions, why is the District Council wishing to favour one private potential operator over existing businesses?
If the council is committed to "economic vitality" of the visitor
accommodation sector, surely any master plan for St Mary Lands which includes a controversial hotel should seek to examine the likely economic impact on existing businesses. If not why are the needs of the Jockey Club rather than local independent businesses felt to be of more importance to
WDC?

Given that many local hotels have closed or might be in economic
difficulty, should there not be a clause in the local plan stating that no additional large hotels ( more than 50 bedrooms) would be permitted without an economic impact study?

CT7 mentions economic vitality of the racecourse, yet all the published public evidence in the form of a BHA report on Horse Racing and the Jockey Club accounts demonstrates five years of record profits and turnover. Therefore, given this success, what
evidence has been presented of pressing economic need to hand over areas of public park to Jockey Club control - particularly when the Jockey Club is already making record profits (and does not publish the data or accounts for Warwick Racecourse which does not appear to be managed as a separate unit, as it is rather a subsidiary of Cheltenham Racecourse)?

There is no mention of the Warwick District Council Act 1984, half of which specifically deals with St Mary Lands, this omission is inconsistent and illogical. Some of
the proposals in CT7 appear to be in conflict with the Act of Parliament - specifically the requirement to keep 25 hectares undeveloped and available for public access and recreation.

I suggest an additional line that no development or masterplan would be allowed which was in conflict with the Warwick District Council Act 1984, might resolve the issue?

I wish to raise an objection to the content of section CT7 in the Local Plan.
St Mary Lands already has a comprehensive management plan that was agreed in 2005.
A new "Master Plan "is therefore not required for St Mary Land.
An explanation as to why a new "master plan" that affects St Mary's Lands is not provided in the new document. The Jockey Club is the current major tenant. They appear to be given a privileged position and input. This is an opportunity for a conflict of interest that should be avoided.
Please see attachment

As a resident of Warwick I wish to raise a number of objections to CT7 in the Local Plan.

I believe it is a mistake to link Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourse
into one clause. I believe it also a method of overriding the opinions of Warwick residents, who for years have objected to the development of either.

Warwick Castle as we know is a privately owned company and has over 800000 visitors and it employs more than 250 FT staff, opening daily. The Racecourse has a short lease on part of a public asset,which will in 2014 only have 16 days of racing, it has a approximately 30000 visitors and employs about 9 FT staff.

There are far more important visitor attractions in Warwick District, so I have to questionas to why Warwick Castle and Warwick racecourse warrant a separate clause in the Local Plan?

I would suggest that it would be better to have a general clause dealing with publicly
owned parks in Warwick?
The general public has already been asked, if Warwick Racecourse should be treated as a special planning case (as part of The Town centre Plan). This was rejected overwhelming, so WHY has reappeared at a late stage into the local plan?

Although I am writing this as a member of the public, As Town Councillor for Warwick (west) I do not remember discussing this clause at Town Council .

St Mary Lands already has a management plan that was implemented from 2005, I see no reason or explanation why a new " plan" is required, or as to why it should
be part of the Local Plan.

I am also concerned about the comment "visitor accommodation" that is mentioned, at present there is none.St Mary Lands and a proposed hotel had previously been rejected by the planning committee as the site was unsuitable. This seems to undermine the Council's own planning committee decision from 2012, without out any justification?
I hope my objections are given serious consideration.

Regards
John Paul Sullivan

I wish to raise a number of objections to CT7 in the Local Plan.

Why have Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourse
into one clause?
Warwick residents have objected to the development of both previously.

There are far more important visitor attractions in Warwick District, so why does Warwick Castle and Warwick racecourse warrant a separate clause in the Local Plan?

I would suggest a public enquiry St Marys lands as this is an on going saga.
St Mary Lands already has a management plan that was implemented from 2005, Why is a new " plan" is required? Why it should be part of the Local Plan.

A proposed hotel had previously been rejected by the planning committee as the site was deemed unsuitable. This undermines the Council's own planning committee decision from 2012, without out any justification.
Regards
Jaqueline D'Arcy

See attached

See attachment

See attachment.

see attached

See attached

See attached

Local Plan Strategy and Objectives:
Welcome LP strategy and supporting objectives, and commitment to deliver framework provided by the objectives to deliver sustainable development giving full consideration to the natural environment.
Development Strategy:
DS3 Supporting Sustainable Communities
Recommend two amendments to chapter 2.8
Within point .a) physical infrastructure the text should be amended to include
'Flood defence structures' within the examples given.
We would recommend that point c) of this policy is expanded to highlight the multiple benefits that green infrastructure can deliver, in your policy the provided examples include parks, open space and playing pitches.
Does not accurately identify range of ecosystem services that green infrastructure provides, including surface water management and improving water quality, through Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), habitat and green routes for biodiversity movement, to support nature conservation/expansion of habitat. Assists with reducing the urban heat island by providing thermal cooling as an adaptation of climate change in addition to providing health and social benefits. It should be considered as integral to all new developments rather than as separate entity such as formal green space for recreational uses.
c) Recommend bullet point be amended to include the following text:
„Ecosystem services including Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), expansion of habitat and as an adaptation to climate change „is added to the end of the sentence.
DS4 Spatial Strategy
Support this policy and welcome the prioritisation of brownfield redevelopment first approach advocated by this policy, however:
Recommend that point f) be amended to include the following text
'or other highly sensitive features in the natural environment (included designated sites for nature conservation) will be avoided'
Recommend insertion of the following statements:
„h) sensitive groundwater resources (i.e. source protection zones) supporting public water supply boreholes are protected'.
i) ensure that development is not at risk of flooding, does not increase flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk overall.‟ DS7 Meeting the Housing Requirement
In chapter 2.23 we note that this approach provides the opportunity to investigate and remediate any contaminated land. Development proposals should be supported by Preliminary Risk Assessment (i.e. Desk study, conceptual model and initial assessment of risk on controlled waters receptors). DS10, DS11& DS15: The EA supports council‟s preference for allocating PD sites. Development proposal should be supported by Preliminary Risk Assessment (i.e. Desk study, conceptual model and initial assessment of risk on controlled waters receptors).
Development proposals should take into consideration the EA's groundwater protection policy (GP3) to ensure that groundwater resources are not impacted as a result of development.
EC2 Farm Diversification
Recognise importance of farming to the rural economy, and need to support diversification into non agricultural activities. However farm diversification can involve range of activities from recreational to energy production that may have negative impact upon the environment. Therefore recommend insertion of the following statements into the policy:
'd) Farmland is important for nature conservation and biodiversity. Enhancements to maintain ecological resilient networks through the countryside should be incorporated to proposals. e) Connectivity of riparian corridors are maintained and protected with buffer margins and tree planting
f) There will be a presumption against development that could lead to the degradation of the Water framework Directive (WFD) status of the waterbody should not be permitted'.
CT6 Camping and Caravan Sites
EA recognises importance of these sites for holiday use is important to local economy, but this needs to be balanced with the requirements of European Directives and the NPPF.
In line with existing practice guidance for the NPPF we note that Camping and Caravan parks are classified as „highly vulnerable‟ and that planning permission must not be granted for sites located within flood zone 3, and that the exception test must be granted for sites within flood zone 2.
We recommend that a precautionary approach be taken and we recommend the insertion of the following policy wording:
'There is a presumption against locating camping and caravan sites within the flood plan because of their vulnerability within a flood event'
The Environment Agency is concerned about the potential impacts that new camping / caravan sites may have on meeting the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, specifically in relation to the provision of foul waste infrastructure.
During the year there may be significant peaks in use of toileting precautionary approach taken and recommend insertion of the following policy wording:
'There should be a presumption against development of new camping and caravan sites that can not demonstrate adequate provision for the management and discharge foul / waste water'.
Refer you to letter sent to your Authority in relation to the preferred options consultation - Sites for Gypsies and Travellers ref UY/2007/101229/SL-04/PO1 - LO1 dated 09 May 2014. where there us more detailed information about potential allocations, and provides supporting evidence for policy recommendations.
CT7 Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourse/St Mary‟s Lands
Acknowledge need to allow new development within this area that is sensitive to heritage assets; recommend that the following policy wording is added to the policy:
f) Identify how the proposals will contribute to EU Water Framework Directive and the Severn River Basin Management plan which requires the restoration and enhancements of water bodies to prevent deterioration and promote recovery of waterbodies.
We have the following information about the watercourse status as determined under WFD objectives.
GB109054043800 (Gog Brook from Source to confl with R Avon) is failing WFD with Moderate status (2009)
GB109054044402 R Avon (Wark) conf R Leam to Tramway Br, Stratford is failing WFD with Moderate status (2009)
To meet the requirements of the WFD objectives these waterbodies must reach good ecological status, all new development within this area must contribute to meeting this objective.
MS2 Note that the major sites include Stoneleigh Park and Stoneleigh Deer Park. The watercourse in this area is failing to meet good status as defined by the WFD, specifically waterbody GB109054043840 R Avon (Warks) - conf R Sowe to conf R Leam is failing WFD with Poor status (2009).
It is imperative that any new development contributes positively to improving quality of this watercourse.
Recommend that the following policy wording is added to the policy:
'Identify how the proposals will contribute to EU Water Framework Directive and the Severn River Basin Management plan which requires the restoration and enhancements of water bodies to prevent deterioration and promote recovery of waterbodies'.
Policy H1 Directing New Housing
In line with recommendations within Halcrow Water Cycle Study 2010, which recommends that:
„Floodplains should be safeguarded from future development and local authorities must apply the Sequential Test to ensure all new development is directed towards Flood Zone 1 in the first instance.
Opportunities should be taken to reinstate areas of functional floodplain which have been previously developed and Flood Zones 2 and 3 should be left as open space‟
Recommend addition of the following points within the policy wording:
vi) the development is not at risk of flooding and will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
vii) All development proposals should be discussed with STW at the earliest possible opportunity, to understand the constraints for development and potential upgrades required to ensure the provision of adequate foul/ waste water infrastructure.'
Policy H5 Specialist Housing for Older People Residential care home are classified as "more vulnerable" in accordance with Table 2 of NPPF and are therefore considered appropriate in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3a (Exception test required).
However, as the occupants are less mobile they are particularly vulnerable in a flood event, making evacuation more difficult. With this in mind, we recommend that you consider adding criteria:
'd) the proposed site is located in Flood Zone1.'

Policy H6 Houses in Multiple Occupancy, and Student Accommodation
Correctly identified that household waste management is often an issue at HMO‟s and Policy H6 e) requires that adequate provision is made for storage of refuse containers in new HMO‟s and that storage areas do not impact on the amenity of the local area.
While we would support this policy it is also important to ensure that not only is the space provided adequate but it is also appropriate to the functioning of the HMO.
For example there should be appropriate storage space internally at the point of arising as well as externally in order to minimise number of trips required to outside storage areas. The distance that occupants need to travel to access waste storage areas should also be considered as carrying waste beyond a certain distance may cause inconvenience and result in reduced participation in collection arrangements.
Distance between waste storage areas and waste collection points should also be considered. Routing and access for waste collection vehicles will also be important. In addition clear signage should be provided to identify what waste streams can go into each waste receptacle, this will be especially important for transient populations who may not be familiar with the authorities waste collection arrangements.
H8 New Gypsy and Traveller Sites
In line with existing practice guidance for the NPPF we note that Gypsy and Traveller sites are considered to be „highly vulnerable‟ and that planning permission must not be granted for sites located within flood zone 3, and that the exception test must be granted for sites within flood zone 2.
Recommend a precautionary approach and recommend the insertion of the following policy wording:
f) 'There is a presumption against locating camping and caravan sites within the flood plan because of their vulnerability within a flood event
g) The site will not impact on important designated sites for nature conservation.
h) Riparian Corridors are protected.
i)There should be a presumption against development of new traveller and gypsy sites that can not demonstrate adequate provision for the management and discharge foul / waste water'
SC0 Sustainable Communities
Would like to include the following points into this policy as they are significant indictors of sustainable development, furthermore without their inclusion into the text below the proposed policy may be judged as not meeting the requirements of the NPPF, or European legislation.
Suggest that point j) is re-worded as follows:
„reduce flood risk on the site and to the wider community through the layout and form of the development, and surface water is managed effectively on site through the incorporation of green infrastructure including Sustainable Urban Drainage systems into all new development's.
Recommend insertion of text below into the policy:
'h) Development proposals should have regard to and support the actions and
objectives of the Severn River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and also have regard to the River Severn Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs).
i) Protect principal aquifers and the source protection zones associated with pubic supply boreholes within the northern part of the district, there will be a presumption against development within a groundwater SPZ1 which would physically disturb an aquifer.'
BE1 Built Environment
Note policy seems to provide an overarching approach to ensure that built development is both recommend:
following wording is added to the end of bullet point i)
' incorporating sustainable water managment features including, wetlands, ponds and swales, green roofs and street rain gardens.'
Recommend insertion of following points within the policy:
'q) Safeguard ecological features incorporating them into design and creating more resilient ecological networks, as an integral part of the scheme.
r) Development proposals must demonstrate that the strategic network of environmental infrastructure will be protected, enhanced and expanded at every opportunity. s) Ensure that there is an appropriate easement between all waterbodies/ watercourses to allow access and maintenance (for Main River this will be a minimum of 8 metres).
t) In line with objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), development proposals must not adversely affect water quality of waterbodies in the District and wherever possible take measures to improve it.'
Recommend you consult your Lead Local flood Authority in relation to their requirements for easements for developments in close proximity to ordinary watercourses.
Development near to waterbodies should include access to them, and watercourses should reflect a natural state. Every opportunity should be taken where development lies adjacent to the river corridor, their tributaries or floodplain to benefit the river by reinstating a natural, sinuous river channel and restoring the functional floodplain within areas where it has been previously lost.
Welcome bullet point n) which requires sufficient provision for sustainable waste management within new developments.
TR3 Transport Improvements
Recommend policy amended to reflect the need to retrofit SuDS to existing transport routes, and to all new transport routes.
One of the significant contributions to pollution within some watercourses may be attributed directly to discharges of surface water from road network. This can contribute recovery of a watercourse and its ability to reach good ecological status as required by the Water Framework Directive.
Recommend policy is reworded to state:
'Contributions should include provision for public transport, footpaths, cycleways, towpaths and sustainable drainage systems, both internal and external to development areas'.
CC2 Planning for Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Generation Hydropower proposals (point g) must be supported by an assessment demonstrating that this method of energy generation will not compromise the objectives of the River Severn Basin Management Plan. New hydroelectric developments will also be subject to Flood Defence Consent from the relevant Flood Risk Management Authority.
Recommend insertion of following text:
h) Development proposals should have regard to and support the actions and objectives of the River Severn River Basin Management Plan (RBMPs)
i) Hydroelectric developments will also be subject to Flood Defence Consent from the relevant Flood Risk Management Authority'
FW1 Development in Areas at Risk of Flooding
Suggest that title of this policy is changed as it implies that development in areas of risk of flooding is appropriate , which is contrary to NPPF in which the aim of the Sequential Tests is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. We recommend that an alternative policy title such as „Reducing Flood Risk‟ is used instead. Where there are no reasonable available sites in Flood Zone 1, the Sequential Test should be applied; taking into account the flood risk vulnerability of land use and consider reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 2, applying the Exception Test if required. Only where there are no reasonable available sites in Flood Zones 1 and 2 should the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3 be considered, taking into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and applying the Exception Test if required. As soon as the need for the Exception test is established, a level 2 SFRA should be undertaken by a suitable qualified technical expert or engineer. We have the following comments on the criteria outlined for this policy in relation to each bullet point within the policy. a) The SFRA level 1 Flood Zone maps are based on our Flood Map (fluvial risk) and the Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding, now known as the Updated Flood Map for Surface Water (surface water risk). Unless there are plans to continually update the SFRA mapping, we suggest that our online Flood Map (now known as "Flood Map for Planning") available on the .GOV.UK website is referred to as this is updated on a quarterly basis and should provide the most up to date information.
b) this is essentially the Sequential test, and we would consider this criteria is re-worded to:
'the Sequential test is applied on the site so that the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk'.
c ) We recommend that the term "flood defence" in this criterion is replaced with the following wording
'development is appropriately flood resistance and resilience'
Because the term flood defence suggests formal flood walls etc which will prevent flooding in all circumstances, however even development behind flood defence structures can experience flooding through breach or overtopping. It is far more practicable to direct new development to flood zone 1 rather than in an area benefiting from existing flood defences. This should not be used to justify development in inappropriate locations.
e) Request clarification as to how the term "regular flooding" defined, we feel that this should either be removed from the policy, or the wording changed to indicate a likely return period, paying due regard to the NPPF which has a presumption against all development within the functional floodplain unless it can be described as water compatible.
g) Suggest this is re-worded to the following text:
'the development must be 'safe' over its lifetime, taking into account the effects of climate change. Safe pedestrian and emergency vehicle access routes above the 1:100 year plus climate change flood level must be available. Evacuation plans must be prepared for all new developments in flood risk areas'. Suggest that the paragraph "land that is required for current and future flood management will be safeguarded from development" is added as a continuation of the points (i) rather than a separate paragraph. We recommend that the paragraph "Where development is supported as an exception to this policy..." is removed, as there shouldn‟t be any exceptions to this policy and all criteria must be complied with. This wording is repeated in paragraph 5.130 and should be removed.
This is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, and the Environment Agency must object in principal to inappropriate development within the floodplain.
We would object to this section policy at a formal review of this plan, and it‟s inclusion could render the policy as unsound. We recommend the addition of the following criteria to Policy FW1 as supported by the level 1 SFRA: 'j) the functional floodplain is protected from all built development.
k) space should specifically be set aside for Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) and used to inform the overall site layout.
l) development proposals must provide a minimum 8m wide development buffer strip from watercourses (culverted or otherwise).
m) every opportunity should be taken to de-culvert and re-naturalisation of watercourses. Culverting of existing open watercourses will not be permitted.
n) opportunities should be sought to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area and beyond through the layout and form of the development, and the appropriate application of SuDS.
o)for residential development, finished floor levels are set a minimum of 600mm above the 1% (1 in 100 year) plus climate change flood level.
p) developers will be required to contribute towards the cost of planned flood risk management schemes that will benefit the site.
q) opportunities should be sought to make space for water within the development to accommodate climate change.
r) Development proposals will demonstrate that will not cause deterioration of the waterbodies WFD status and contribute to meeting good status.
s) Carry out a WFD Assessment to demonstrate how the waterbody will not deteriorate in status and will be enhanced
t) No detrimental impact on priority habitat or designated sites of nature conservation.' With regard to the FRA requirements, we suggest that point (a) is re-worded as
'within Flood Zone 2 or 3 or proposals of 1 hectare or greater in Flood zone 1, as defined on the Environment Agency's Flood Map for Planning'.
The mapping in Warwick District Council‟s SFRA level 1 is based on our Flood Map. The SFRA report states that it is a "living" document and should be reviewed on a regular basis. Our Flood Map for Planning is updated on a quarterly basis to incorporate improved river models etc and this should be reflected in the SFRA document.
However, if there are no plans to update the SFRA maps on a quarterly basis in line with our Flood Map updates, then we recommend that our Flood Map is considered the best available information or until such time as a level 2 SFRA is produced. Recommend that bullet points are used in this section so as to avoid confusion with the numbering system used in the criteria part of the policy. Paragraph 5.131 Our "Flood Map for Planning" replaced the indicative flood zone maps and should be referred to in this paragraph. FW2 Sustainable Urban Drainage We recommend that the title of this policy is re-worded to 'Sustainable Drainage' as the sustainable drainage applies to both greenfield and brownfield sites.
In the first paragraph "Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)" should be replaced with „Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)‟ as they are now known.
The retrofitting of SuDS onto existing drainage systems should be a requirement for developments where it is not possible to install an entirely new system. Recommend that the following text is added to point c):
'ecological networks and informal recreation'
Suggest that the middle paragraph of this policy is re-worded as follows to make it clearer on the surface water hierarchy and that surface water discharge should be limited to greenfield runoff rate for all points of discharge:
„Surface water runoff should be managed as close to its source as possible in line with the following drainage hierarchy: i. Discharge into the ground (infiltration) unless it is demonstrated by infiltration tests and groundwater levels that infiltration is not possible. ii. Discharge to a surface water body. iii. Discharge to a surface water sewer, highway drain or another drainage system. iv. Discharge to a combined sewer. Above ground storage, such as balancing ponds, should be considered in preference to below ground attenuation, due to the water quality and biodiversity benefits they offer. For all sites, surface water discharge rate should be limited to the site-specific greenfield runoff rate for all return periods up to the 1% (1 in 100 year) plus climate change event' We recommend that the paragraph which includes the text "In exceptional circumstances, where a sustainable drainage system....c) contributions will be made to off-site SuDS schemes" is removed.
This wording provides an unnecessary get out clause and could result in the delivery of unsustainable development, sustainable drainage systems take many different forms and there is no reason why a SuDS solution cannot be designed for every site.
We welcome the policy requirement for developers undertake groundwater risk assessment to ensure that groundwater quality is protected a result of development proposals. Subsequently any proposal involving infiltration SuDS schemes should be accompanied by contaminated land investigations to endure that site condition is appropriate.
For sites that are identified as significantly contaminated EA would require input into any SuDS schemes proposed for new development to determine the most appropriate schemes. This would be to safeguard groundwater quality.

see attached