Rochford District Council
Planning Department
3-19 South Street
Rochford
Essex
SS4 1BW

	

Our ref:	AE/2011/113350/01-L01
Your ref:	11/00494/FUL

Date:		6th October 2011

FAO: Katie Rodgers

Dear Madam

DEMOLITION OF ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS; ERECTION OF 45NO. TWO AND THREE STOREY HOUSES COMPRISING 17NO. TWO BEDROOM UNITS, 23NO. THREE BEDROOM UNITS AND 5NO. FOUR BEDROOM UNITS; ERECTION OF 4NO. THREE AND FOUR STOREY (INCLUDING UNDERCROFT) BLOCKS CONTAINING 51 FLATS COMPRISING 17NO. ONE BEDROOM UNITS AND 34NO. TWO BEDROOM UNITS; PROVISION OF ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, CAR PARKING, CYCLE PARKING, AND SERVICING ACCESS; CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVED FLOOD DEFENCES COMPRISING LANDSCAPED BUNDS, SEA WALL & SHEET PILE WHARF EDGE; DIVERSION OF BRIDLEWAY.   STAMBRIDGE MILLS, ROCHFORD.      

I refer to the above application and Environmental Statement received on 5th September 2011. As per the agreed timescale, our comments on the submitted scheme are made below:

HYDROLOGY, FLOOD RISK AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

Sequential Test and parts a) and b) of the Exception Test

As you are aware, the application site lies within Flood Zone 3a, defined by Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 as having a high probability of flooding. The submitted application consists of redevelopment of the site to create 96 residential units and associated works; including construction of improved flood defences. This is considered a ‘more vulnerable’ land use according to PPS 25 and is therefore required to pass the Sequential and Exception Test as well as being supported by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).

The FRA acknowledges this requirement and, as advised in paragraphs 2.4.3 and 10.2.1 of the FRA, considers it passed based upon the Councils ‘Core Strategy Topic Paper 1’ document. However we wish to draw your attention to our concerns with this document which were provided in response to the Inspectors Issues and Matters, dated 20th April 2010 (copy attached). In light of our comments we suggest that, in advance of the Planning Inspectorate issuing their report on the soundness of the Core Strategy, the Council will need to address the points we raised to demonstrate that the application is fully compliant with PPS 25. 

If the Sequential Test can be passed, then the Exception Test will also need to be considered by the Council. We note paragraph 2.4.6 of the FRA advises part a) has been taken account of within the Sequential Test document however, as detailed in our response to the inspectors matters and issues, we do not consider this to be the case. Rochford District Council will therefore need to provide this information to us to justify this planning application. 

Part b) of the Exception Test is considered to be passed as the site is classified as developable previously developed land.

Part c) of the Exception Test - Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

We have reviewed the submitted FRA, referenced 1347782 and dated August 2011, which will inform part c) of the Exception Test. Please note that notwithstanding our comments on the FRA, in accordance with PPS 25 the Sequential Test must still be passed.  Detailed comments on the FRA are provided below:

We have considered the information submitted and confirm that we object to the application at this stage.  Our objection at this stage relates to two key areas, the flood risk assessment and the flood defence improvements. We wish to make the following comments in relation to each of these areas.

Flood risk

The FRA has considered the expected risk of flooding to the site and its users following a failure of the defences for the 1 in 200 year event (inclusive of climate change).  If the defences were to fail, flood depths of water across the site would range from 0.3m to 1.95m.  Flood waters reach the site within 1 hour of the defence failing with a 'danger for most' hazard category being reached 20 minutes later.  Residents may be required to remain within their dwellings for approximately 6 hours.

As part of the analysis, consideration has been given to the risk of flooding to the site if the defence failed at the flood warning threshold level.  This information is particularly useful as it provides information on the flood risk at the site if a flood warning had not been issued and the defences failed.  This is useful to build up a picture of the risk to the site for an unwarned situation.  The analysis has shown that the site would not flood in if defences failed at or below the flood warning threshold which means that as long as a flood warning is issued, site users should be able to leave the site before any flood waters reach it.

Ground floor levels for the apartments above the parking area will be set at 6.3m AOD and therefore above the flood level.  Some dwellings will have ground floor levels below the modelled flood level.  These dwellings will have refuge above the flood level.   This will be acceptable if flood proofing measures can be provided for these particular buildings up to the flood level.  Simple measures include raising electrical sockets and services above the flood level.

Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures

The FRA does not include details of the hydrostatic or hydrodynamic pressures expected upon the buildings following failure of the defences.  As the safety of people within the development (if failure of the defences occurs) is relying upon site users remaining within their buildings it is particularly important that the buildings themselves are designed to remain standing.  We do not require full structural design details but do require calculations to be provided which shows what the likely pressures would be based upon the flood modelling produced and confirmation from a structural engineer that the buildings could be designed to withstand the calculated pressures.

Flood response plan

A flood response plan has been drawn up for the site which suggests that residents remain within the buildings.    We consider the information provided as part of the FRA should be sufficient to enable the emergency planner and services to consider whether this strategy is appropriate.  We note that this plan has previously been agreed by the emergency planners and services.  If planning permission is to be granted in the future then we recommend that you consult your emergency planners, the emergency services and the Local Resilience Forum to ensure that they still consider the plan to be appropriate. It is essential that this consultation takes place prior to the granting of planning permission, as the agreement and securing of a suitable flood response plan will be crucial for the safety of the development.

Surface Water Drainage

The drainage strategy in appendix E confirms that surface water will be discharged at the greenfield runoff rate and that storage will be provided onsite to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm, inclusive of climate change.  No details confirming the greenfield runoff rates or the volume of storage required on site have been provided.  As a minimum, details of the runoff rates, the volume of storage, and at least one workable strategy should be provided for us to confirm that an acceptable method for the management of surface water has been provided.  

Consideration must also be given to any periods where surface water may not be able to freely discharge because the outfall may be tide-locked, resulting in surcharging of the system.

The storage of surface water should be provided through sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). The use of oversize pipes and storage tanks does not constitute SUDS. Sustainable drainage techniques should be considered, and suitable justification should be given where they are not to be implemented.  Further guidance on SUDS techniques can be found in the CIRIA C609 document 'The SUDS Manual'.

FLOOD DEFENCES

With regarding to the proposed improvements to the flood defences we do not have an objection in principle.  However, insufficient information has been submitted regarding the responsibilities for maintenance and funding of the defences.  Funding for the construction and maintenance of the defences could be secured through a section 106 agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1930. This will ensure that the necessary works and future maintenance requirements are met.

We will not take on the maintenance of new outfalls and/or sluices and do not currently maintain the sheet piling to the frontage of the site, and would not take on this additional responsibility as a result of the development.

Without clarification regarding funding and future maintenance we question whether the residual risk can be appropriately managed.  Paragraph 22 of PPS25 confirms that 'any necessary flood risk management measures should be sufficiently funded to ensure that the site can be developed and occupied safely throughout its proposed lifetime'.

It is important that any flood defence works do not damage existing habitats within the estuary.  Where new piling is proposed, mitigation should be provided to encourage habitat.  An option could be to attach horizontal timbers to the sheet piling.  This will allow matter to collect between the piling and timbers and encourage colonisation.

Advice to Applicant

Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 9 metres of the top of the bank of the main river (River Roach). 

Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Agency is required for any proposed works or structures either affecting or within 9 metres of the tidal or fluvial flood defence.

Not withstanding the above objections, the following comments are made on the remaining aspects of the development for completeness:

ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

The establishment of a rotationally managed seawall flood defence on either side of Stambridge Mills is to be welcomed and should provide habitat for scarce bumblebees recorded on flood walls in the area (e.g. shrill carder bee). This seawall flood embankment should include some unmanaged blackthorn on it to provide habitat for the nationally scarce sloe carpet moth. At other sites in Essex, the sloe carpet moth has been recorded on uncut blackthorn on seawalls. This allows the moth to persist on seawalls, and the caterpillar was recorded at Old Hall Marshes in 2011 in this uncut blackthorn. 

Therefore, we agree with the recommendations of the invertebrate survey that as much blackthorn scrub as possible should remain on site post development.  If scrub is to be lost then compensatory planting of blackthorn should be undertaken at the fringes of the development site.

CONTAMINATED LAND AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

We have read the Preliminary Risk Assessment (Beaureau Veritas, September 2007) submitted as Appendix 10.1 to the Environmental Statement (ES) for the Stambridge Mills site, which identified the potential for contamination of the River Terrace Secondary A sand & gravel aquifer from hydrocarbon storage (oil and diesel tanks, vehicle wash-down area) and from an electrical substation; these installations are understood to be bunded but the integrity of the bunds and the period during which this secondary containment was employed was unknown.  Discharge from the sand & gravel aquifer may feed into the River Roach, which forms the southern boundary of the site.  

The Phase II Environmental Assessment (Beaureau Veritas, November 2007), submitted as Appendix 10.2 to the ES, indicates that contamination at the site is apparently limited to the area of former above ground hydrocarbon storage tanks in the northwest, furthest from the river.  The laboratory analyses provided suggest that contamination levels are low and that, where present, generally comprise heavier phase organics that should be fairly immobile.  This information, coupled with the finding of low permeability alluvium in the south of the site, suggest that there should not be any significant risk to controlled waters.

On the basis of the information provided we consider that if planning permission is to be granted to the proposed development the following planning condition is imposed as set out below.

Condition:
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason:
To reduce the risk of contamination of controlled waters in line with PPS23.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Environmental permitting
The applicant intends to construct bunds, install roads, raise the level of the land and improving flood defences. We recommend that the applicant contacts us at an early stage to discuss any environmental permitting requirements, for example permits or waste exemptions. The applicant should be aware that an environmental permit application may take several months for us to determine.

Site waste management plan
In England it is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000. The level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding VAT. You must still comply with the duty of care for waste.  Because you will need to record all waste movements in one document, having a SWMP will help you to ensure you comply with the duty of care.

Further information about SWMP’s can be found at :http://www.netregs-swmp.co.uk

Duty of Care
The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. The waste must be described in writing on a waste transfer note. Copies of waste transfer notes will need to be retained for two years.

Waste hierarchy
Should this proposal be granted planning permission, then in accordance with the waste hierarchy, we wish the applicant to consider reduction, reuse and recovery of waste in preference to off site incineration and disposal to landfill during site construction. 

The developer should detail how they will incorporate recycled/recovered materials into the building programme, including the use of secondary and recycled aggregates, and re-use of any on-site demolition waste. It is acknowledged that the developer intends to use demolition arisings on site, e.g. in construction of flood defences.

The developer should detail how the design of the development will incorporate facilities to allow for easy recycling by the residents. Careful thought should be given as to how recycling will be made easy for residents of multi-occupancy buildings http://www.wrap.org.uk;   http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/towards-zero-waste.html.

Consideration should also be given to the provision for recycling on the move, including in areas of public open space. Facilities like these will increase recycling as well as reduce litter.

Hazardous waste
If the waste you are handling is classified as a ‘hazardous waste’ under The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005, then stricter controls on the storage, movement and disposal of this material will apply. Further information can be found on our website:  www.environment-agency.gov.uk/hazwaste

If the site produces over 500kg of hazardous waste per year then they should register as a Hazardous Waste Producer with the Environment Agency. Please see the link below to the registration page.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32198.aspx

Guidance on waste management can be found on our website www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste/

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WATER QUALITY

The environmental statement- hydrology, flood risk and surface drainage identifies a number of activities that could cause pollution.

We have produced a series of pollution prevention guidelines (PPG) and documents to assist businesses and individuals to avoid causing pollution. This guidance can be found at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ppg

Please refer to PPG 6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites:
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/PMHO0410BSGN-E-E.pdf

PPG 5, for working near watercourses must be followed to ensure no adverse impact on water environment during construction phases. PPG5 is available to view at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/PMHO1107BNKG-E-E.pdf

Incident response planning 
We recommend that the operator has a formal procedure in place to manage incidents that have the potential to pollute surface water or groundwater. The plan should cover all stages of the development. This is especially important due to the proximity of sensitive waters, and following an oil pollution incident from the site in April 2011 (incident number 875912). 

Our pollution prevention guides PPG 21 and PPG 22 will assist the operator in developing a plan.
 
Incident Response Planning: PPG 21:
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/PMHO0309BPNA-E-E.pdf
 
Dealing with spills: PPG 22:
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/PMHO0411BTEZ-E-E.pdf
 
Guidance on oil spill clean up products and their application can be found at:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Oil_Clean-Up_product_guidance.pdf
 
Oil storage
Above ground oil storage facilities should comply with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Further guidance on these regulations can be found at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/osr

Discharges to surface water 
If the discharge is clean surface run-off, for example, rainwater from a roof, road, pathway or clean hard standing area, you do not need an environmental permit. Surface water from roads and car parks should be uncontaminated if it has passed through a well-designed and maintained separator. The operator should be aware that the separator will not retain water soluble substances (e.g. acids, emulsion paint, detergents, anti-freeze, etc) which if spilt could flow through the separator and cause pollution.

Our position on discharges of clean, uncontaminated surface water can be found at:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/111878.aspx

Oil separators
We recommend that the applicant refers to our pollution prevention guide PPG3 ‘Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems: PPG 3’. The guidance recommends that an oil separator is installed when there are more than 50 car parking spaces. PPG3 can be found at:
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/PMHO0406BIYL-E-E.pdf
The oil separator would need to be included on a regular inspection and maintenance programme.

A list of separator manufacturers currently selling on the UK market whose separators have been declared compliant with the Construction Products Regulations 1991 can be found at: 
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/PPG_03_Oil_separator_manufacturers_v11_Aug_2011.pdf
 
Foul drainage disposal
The applicant indicates that they will be connecting the development to the foul sewer. The applicants will need to determine which sewerage treatment works the waste water from the development will go to;  whether that works has the physical capacity to accept the predicted levels of waste water and whether the acceptance by the works will result in a deterioration of quality in the discharged effluent, such that either the discharge consent, and/or the ‘no deterioration’ principle of the Water Framework Directive is breached in relation to the receiving water. 

The applicant will also need to determine whether the intervening sewerage system has capacity to accept the predicted levels of waste water resulting from the development.

The development should not be occupied until there is sufficient capacity in the waste water removal and treatment system to cope adequately with the waste water produced. This may mean phasing either the development, or occupation of the development, until sufficient capacity is available.

Anglian Water Services Limited Developer Services department should be contacted regarding the proposal.

If the applicant wishes to obtain more specific advice on waste management or pollution prevention they can contact the Environment Management Team at our Kelvedon Office on 01473 706377

WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

Under the EU Water Framework Directive, the Anglian River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) requires the restoration and enhancement of water bodies to prevent deterioration and promote recovery of water bodies. 

The River Roach in this location has been identified as a high priority watercourse. It has a poor biological status; moderate physico-chemical status and good hydromorphology status. It is classified as heavily modified due to the presence of flood defences.  The overall objective is to achieve good potential by 2027.

The development proposed must not cause further deterioration of the waterbody and where possible enhance the status of the waterbody in line with the overall objective. The comments above on pollution prevention, both during construction and over the lifetime of the development, are essential to ensure no degradation of the water environment does occur.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Policy ENV9 of the Rochford Core Strategy Submission Document proposes that  a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes will be required for all residential development.  The policy then goes on to state that between 2010 and 2013, the council will expect developers to go beyond level 3, particularly in terms of water conservation measures.

Anglian Region of the Environment Agency is a water stressed region, with a third of our water resource catchments having ‘no water available’ (EA State of Environment Report, 2011).  Planned growth, increased water demand and climate change will put extra pressure on our limited resources. New developments that include water efficient homes and buildings will help save water and reduce raw water treatment costs.

It is particularly important that water efficiency measures are incorporated into this scheme. Increased water efficiency will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The applicant should consider the use of water efficient systems and fittings such as dual-flush toilets; water butts; water-saving taps and showers; and appliances with the highest water efficiency rating as a minimum. Greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting should also be considered. 

We recommend that the LPA consider a suitable planning condition to ensure that a minimum of Level 3 of Code for Sustainable Homes is met through this development.

We would also advise that as part of any landscaping proposals thought is given to maximise potential ecological enhancement. Issues that should be considered include the planting of only native species and use of low intensity/ time of year mowing regimes. Green/brown roofs and walls may also be considered. As well as providing additional invertebrate and bird habitats, they can contribute to increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and assist in attenuating rain water flow. 

Green Infrastructure can play a central role in Climate Change adaptation by providing multiple benefits to communities including flood risk management, urban cooling, water resource management and habitat creation.

I trust the above comments will be of use to you, if you have any queries please contact me on the number below.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Lindsay Black
Planning Liaison Officer

Direct dial 01473 706820
Direct fax 01473 271320
Direct e-mail lindsay.black@environment-agency.gov.uk

cc Christopher Wickham Associates