Development Management - Proposed Submission

The Development Management DPD has not currently given any consideration to the capacity of foul water infrastructure in the Borough or the impact of growth on water quality. We therefore consider the plan is unsound as it is not justified, effective or compliant with national policy.

The Council completed a Water Cycle Study (WCS) scoping study in March 2009 which identified the 'Southend Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs) is currently at capacity and therefore does not have the capability to treat further wastewater flows as a result of increase in development' (table 5.1). The works discharge to the Thames Tideways which are designated SPA, SAC, RAMSAR and SSSI. The quality of discharge into this environment must not result in the deterioration of water quality under the Water Framework Directive, Habitats Regulations Directive, Bathing Waters Directive and Shellfish Waters Directive.

The WCS also identified that in some areas of the Borough any increase in flows through the network is 'likely to cause an increase in the frequency of diluted but untreated discharges' into the Thames Tideway (table 5.1). As with the WwTWs, this has the potential to compromise meeting the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, Habitats Regulations Directive, Bathing Waters Directive and Shellfish Waters Directive. Although not specifically identified, it can also be expected that there could be local surcharges in the system which would lead to local flooding and pollution incidents.

The scoping study does not consider the options, viability or timings associated with upgrading the infrastructure and consequently it advises further investigation is required. Southend Borough Council have commissioned a detailed WCS and aimed to publish the draft in May 2010 however we understand this has been significantly delayed. Whilst the detailed WCS needs to be completed as soon as possible to provide information on how and when the issues will be address, it is clear from the information within the scoping report that a policy is required to ensure the impact of new development on foul water infrastructure and water quality is considered. Not considering these issues in the planning process could not only result in a failure in Water Framework Directive, Habitats Regulations Directive, Bathing Waters Directive and Shellfish Waters Directive targets, but it would conflict with other aims of the Councils LDF such as protecting international and national sites for nature conservation and promoting tourism.

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) does not appear to have assessed or considered water quality issues associated with foul drainage. Whilst we note that objective NR2 of the Sustainability Appraisal is 'to maintain and improve the quantity and quality of ground, sea and river waters, and minimise risk of flooding', only policies DM2 and DM16 are rated as 'likely to contribute to the achievement of greater sustainability according to the likely objective'. This however relates to the aspect of the objective requiring improvements to water quantity, not quality. For the majority of policies in the Development Management DPD, this objective is rated as 'no identifiable relationship between the topic covered in the policy and the sustainability concern'.

The importance of ensuring there is adequate infrastructure is recognised by national planning policy. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development states that there is a requirement to base policies on a 'recognition of the limits of the environment to accept further development without irreversible damage' (paragraph 19). Furthermore, the PPS 1 Supplement: Planning and Climate Change states that in selecting land for development, consideration needs to be given to the 'capacity of existing and potential infrastructure' with specific mention of sewage and sewerage (paragraph 2.4). PPS 12: Local Spatial Planning (paragraph 4.8) requires Local Planning Authorities to support policies with evidence of the infrastructure requirements required to facilitate proposed development.

We generally support the ambitions of the Council set out in policy DM2. Given the pressures on water resources in the region, we particularly support the measures to increase water efficiency in new development and promote retrofitting in existing development. It is also pleasing that the multiple benefits of urban greening have been acknowledged in the supporting text such as absorbing rainfall, filtering pollution and promoting biodiversity. Given the highly urbanised nature of the Borough, it will be necessary for developers to consider innovative measures to achieve this such as green/ brown roofs and walls.

We are however disappointed that the part of the policy addressing waste efficiency in the Issues and Options consultation has been removed (point 5 of I&O policy DM4). The Development Management DPD provides an opportunity to promote the consideration of waste as early as possible during the development design phase to ensure that minimal volumes of waste arise during the construction of the development, and the demolition at the end of its life. Developers should also be encouraged to consider 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 unclear why this part of the policy has been removed. We note that the Sustainability Appraisal has also raised this concern.

It is pleasing that paragraph 2.36 will require tall and large buildings to exceed the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM standards.

This policy addresses a number of environmental issues including flood risk, coastal change and biodiversity. Whilst we are generally supportive of the policies ambitions, including points 1 (i-ii) and 2 (i-iii), the policy only relates to the Seafront area of Southend. These environmental issues will however also need to be considered for development in other areas of the Borough. We have considered this concern and although there is not another policy in the Development Management DPD which will address these issues, policy KP1 and KP2 of the adopted Core Strategy does include general development principles on these issues. Therefore, whilst it is disappointing that a more detailed policy on issues such as fluvial and surface flood risk has not been included, we do not feel there is sufficient reason to raise this as a soundness issue.

We also note that the supporting text does provide some commentary which is applicable to elsewhere in the Borough, particularly with regards to managing flood risk and coastal change. With regards to this the council should be aware that any funding provided by us for flood defences is not guaranteed and future investment in flood defences will require greater contributions from communities and businesses. We are also disappointed to note that point 2(i) in Issues and Option policy DM7 has been removed. This required an emergency plan to be in place for developments and forms an part of managing flood risk and ensuring people remain safe. We assume this amendment has been discussed with and got agreement from your emergency planning department in accordance with PPS 25.

We must currently find policy DM15 unsound as it is not consistent with national policy set out in Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control.

Whilst we welcome this policy which will protect controlled waters on sites affected by contamination, we draw your attention to the requirement of point 1iii. This part of the policy states that 'remediation works will be carried our before the occupation of any new development'. It is not however always possible for such works to be carried out at this stage of the development as buildings and other infrastructure on the site may prevent the required works from taking place.

We would also query the wording of point 1ii. Whilst point 1i requires applicants to submit contaminated land assessments with their application to establish any risks on the site, it may not always be appropriate to condition remedial works. This is supported by paragraph 2.44, 2.55, 2.60 and 2.61 of PPS23 annex 2.

The Development Management DPD has not currently given any consideration to the capacity of foul water infrastructure in the Borough or the impact of growth on water quality. We therefore consider the plan is unsound as it is not justified, effective or compliant with national policy.

The Council completed a Water Cycle Study (WCS) scoping study in March 2009 which identified the 'Southend Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs) is currently at capacity and therefore does not have the capability to treat further wastewater flows as a result of increase in development' (table 5.1). The works discharge to the Thames Tideways which are designated SPA, SAC, RAMSAR and SSSI. The quality of discharge into this environment must not result in the deterioration of water quality under the Water Framework Directive, Habitats Regulations Directive, Bathing Waters Directive and Shellfish Waters Directive.

The WCS also identified that in some areas of the Borough any increase in flows through the network is 'likely to cause an increase in the frequency of diluted but untreated discharges' into the Thames Tideway (table 5.1). As with the WwTWs, this has the potential to compromise meeting the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, Habitats Regulations Directive, Bathing Waters Directive and Shellfish Waters Directive. Although not specifically identified, it can also be expected that there could be local surcharges in the system which would lead to local flooding and pollution incidents.

The scoping study does not consider the options, viability or timings associated with upgrading the infrastructure and consequently it advises further investigation is required. Southend Borough Council have commissioned a detailed WCS and aimed to publish the draft in May 2010 however we understand this has been significantly delayed. Whilst the detailed WCS needs to be completed as soon as possible to provide information on how and when the issues will be address, it is clear from the information within the scoping report that a policy is required to ensure the impact of new development on foul water infrastructure and water quality is considered. Not considering these issues in the planning process could not only result in a failure in Water Framework Directive, Habitats Regulations Directive, Bathing Waters Directive and Shellfish Waters Directive targets, but it would conflict with other aims of the Councils LDF such as protecting international and national sites for nature conservation and promoting tourism.

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) does not appear to have assessed or considered water quality issues associated with foul drainage. Whilst we note that objective NR2 of the Sustainability Appraisal is 'to maintain and improve the quantity and quality of ground, sea and river waters, and minimise risk of flooding', only policies DM2 and DM16 are rated as 'likely to contribute to the achievement of greater sustainability according to the likely objective'. This however relates to the aspect of the objective requiring improvements to water quantity, not quality. For the majority of policies in the Development Management DPD, this objective is rated as 'no identifiable relationship between the topic covered in the policy and the sustainability concern'.

The importance of ensuring there is adequate infrastructure is recognised by national planning policy. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development states that there is a requirement to base policies on a 'recognition of the limits of the environment to accept further development without irreversible damage' (paragraph 19). Furthermore, the PPS 1 Supplement: Planning and Climate Change states that in selecting land for development, consideration needs to be given to the 'capacity of existing and potential infrastructure' with specific mention of sewage and sewerage (paragraph 2.4). PPS 12: Local Spatial Planning (paragraph 4.8) requires Local Planning Authorities to support policies with evidence of the infrastructure requirements required to facilitate proposed development.

We generally support the ambitions of the Council set out in policy DM2. Given the pressures on water resources in the region, we particularly support the measures to increase water efficiency in new development and promote retrofitting in existing development. It is also pleasing that the multiple benefits of urban greening have been acknowledged in the supporting text such as absorbing rainfall, filtering pollution and promoting biodiversity. Given the highly urbanised nature of the Borough, it will be necessary for developers to consider innovative measures to achieve this such as green/ brown roofs and walls.

We are however disappointed that the part of the policy addressing waste efficiency in the Issues and Options consultation has been removed (point 5 of I&O policy DM4). The Development Management DPD provides an opportunity to promote the consideration of waste as early as possible during the development design phase to ensure that minimal volumes of waste arise during the construction of the development, and the demolition at the end of its life. Developers should also be encouraged to consider 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 unclear why this part of the policy has been removed. We note that the Sustainability Appraisal has also raised this concern.

We generally support the ambitions of the Council set out in policy DM2. Given the pressures on water resources in the region, we particularly support the measures to increase water efficiency in new development and promote retrofitting in existing development. It is also pleasing that the multiple benefits of urban greening have been acknowledged in the supporting text such as absorbing rainfall, filtering pollution and promoting biodiversity. Given the highly urbanised nature of the Borough, it will be necessary for developers to consider innovative measures to achieve this such as green/ brown roofs and walls.

We are however disappointed that the part of the policy addressing waste efficiency in the Issues and Options consultation has been removed (point 5 of I&O policy DM4). The Development Management DPD provides an opportunity to promote the consideration of waste as early as possible during the development design phase to ensure that minimal volumes of waste arise during the construction of the development, and the demolition at the end of its life. Developers should also be encouraged to consider 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 unclear why this part of the policy has been removed. We note that the Sustainability Appraisal has also raised this concern.

This policy addresses a number of environmental issues including flood risk, coastal change and biodiversity. Whilst we are generally supportive of the policies ambitions, including points 1 (i-ii) and 2 (i-iii), the policy only relates to the Seafront area of Southend. These environmental issues will however also need to be considered for development in other areas of the Borough. We have considered this concern and although there is not another policy in the Development Management DPD which will address these issues, policy KP1 and KP2 of the adopted Core Strategy does include general development principles on these issues. Therefore, whilst it is disappointing that a more detailed policy on issues such as fluvial and surface flood risk has not been included, we do not feel there is sufficient reason to raise this as a soundness issue.

We also note that the supporting text does provide some commentary which is applicable to elsewhere in the Borough, particularly with regards to managing flood risk and coastal change. With regards to this the council should be aware that any funding provided by us for flood defences is not guaranteed and future investment in flood defences will require greater contributions from communities and businesses. We are also disappointed to note that point 2(i) in Issues and Option policy DM7 has been removed. This required an emergency plan to be in place for developments and forms an part of managing flood risk and ensuring people remain safe. We assume this amendment has been discussed with and got agreement from your emergency planning department in accordance with PPS 25.

This policy addresses a number of environmental issues including flood risk, coastal change and biodiversity. Whilst we are generally supportive of the policies ambitions, including points 1 (i-ii) and 2 (i-iii), the policy only relates to the Seafront area of Southend. These environmental issues will however also need to be considered for development in other areas of the Borough. We have considered this concern and although there is not another policy in the Development Management DPD which will address these issues, policy KP1 and KP2 of the adopted Core Strategy does include general development principles on these issues. Therefore, whilst it is disappointing that a more detailed policy on issues such as fluvial and surface flood risk has not been included, we do not feel there is sufficient reason to raise this as a soundness issue.

We also note that the supporting text does provide some commentary which is applicable to elsewhere in the Borough, particularly with regards to managing flood risk and coastal change. With regards to this the council should be aware that any funding provided by us for flood defences is not guaranteed and future investment in flood defences will require greater contributions from communities and businesses. We are also disappointed to note that point 2(i) in Issues and Option policy DM7 has been removed. This required an emergency plan to be in place for developments and forms an part of managing flood risk and ensuring people remain safe. We assume this amendment has been discussed with and got agreement from your emergency planning department in accordance with PPS 25.