Docstoc

31-water-_and_-flooding

Document Sample
31-water-_and_-flooding Powered By Docstoc
					Stirling LDP Topic Paper 31: Water Resources Management -
Flooding / SuDS / Water Quality / RBMP / Water Supply
1.0      Introduction
1.1      Water management in one form or another is very significant over most of the Plan
area. Climate change brings the prospect of different or more severe flooding problems.
New legislation governing river basin management and dealing with flood risk is in place, and
there are additional or different roles and responsibilities for SEPA, Scottish Water, Local
Authorities and others. The Scottish Marine Bill may introduce new requirements affecting
the tidal waters of the Forth Estuary within the Council area. A review of the Development
Plan system’s approach to water management and its interaction with other planning and
regulatory regimes is necessary  .

1.2      Flooding – especially from rivers but potentially from the estuary and from urban
drainage systems – affects a number of areas with some frequency. Flood risk and flood
protection/alleviation have a high political profile. Climate change seems to be delivering
more frequent and more severe storm events leading to flooding events, and even if
watercourses are not overloaded, surface water retention and soil waterlogging bring
problems, especially for farmers. Communities at risk from fluvial flooding include Stirling
itself, Dunblane, Bridge of Allan and Fintry, and quite large rural areas with relatively few
properties are inundated regularly. Even when property is not affected, road communications
may be cut. [Other places, such as Callander and Aberfoyle have flooding problems, but they
are in the National Park for Planning purposes. Rivers and floods do not respect
administrative boundaries. Flood risk planning (see para 2.2 et seq) has to be on a river
catchment basis. Scottish Government GIS service published estimates in 2007 – based on
2006 data – suggested that 8.2% of the Stirling Council area (including the National Park),
and containing about 3000 properties, was at risk from the 1:200 year flood – river and
coastal. River flooding is potentially the more severe, affecting 2996 properties; i.e. most of
the properties at risk from coastal flooding are also at risk of flooding from rivers. More recent
(November 2009) Council estimates indicate that in Stirling and Bridge of Allan alone over
1700 premises (not buildings – upper floors are included because of the loss of access and
potential for damp penetration) are at risk and that the reinstatement/repair costs following a
flood might top £40 million].

1.3      Water quality is important as a general measure of the quality and health of the
environment, and because water is a resource, a habitat and a landscape element.
Availability of water supply is important for enabling development and over the Plan area
water supply is generally adequate and can be augmented if required.                  Any new
developments or activities using high volumes of water may be more difficult to accommodate
in some areas. There are significant water supply catchments in the Plan area (some serving
populations outwith the area); some watercourses are linked with hydro – power generation;
agriculture relies to an extent on water for stock and irrigation; and some specialist activities
rely on pure water sources, eg fish farming/research, distilleries.

1.4      The carse-lands are low – lying land, sufficiently level and frequently covered in clay
soils so that management of surface water is problematic. Site drainage everywhere is an
important consideration in planning decisions. There is a tension between the desire/need to
drain land for farming, forestry, development, etc, purposes while not disposing of the
drainage water in ways that exacerbate flood risk, cause erosion, exacerbate pollution, or
affect the ability of sewage works to cope with foul drainage.

1.5     Heavy rain at more frequent intervals also increases the risk of landslides. This may
need to be taken into account when considering developments on or near slopes. There are




  n.b.    Hydro-power is dealt with separately in a Renewable Energy topic paper; Water and wetlands as habitats
are considered in the Natural Heritage topic paper; Water as a basis for recreation is considered in a Countryside
Recreation topic paper



File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
are also implications for infrastructure and communications (as was shown in Glen Ogle in
2004).

2.0     Background and Context
Flooding, Surface Water Drainage and SuDS:

        Current Development Plan Position

2.1     The Structure Plan refers to the flood risk, land drainage and ecological aspects of
water management. Local Plan policies on flood avoidance and site drainage were updated
in the 1st Alteration to reflect revised national planning guidance and advice. There is
considerable overlap between the Structure Plan and Local Plan policies.

Structure Plan –
ENV9(1) – Protect flood plains; ENV9(2) – Avoid flood risk; ENV9(3) – Use of SuDS for site
drainage; ENV9(4) – Need for long term management arrangements for flood alleviation
schemes and drainage schemes; ENV9(5) – Estuary flooding.

Local Plan –
E61(1) - Requirement for Flood Risk Assessments; E61(2) – Development to avoid flood risk
areas; E61(3) – Exceptions allowing development in areas at risk in certain cases; E62(1) -
Use of SuDS for site drainage; E62(2) – No culverts; reinstate natural watercourses.

The concentration on flooding and drainage is evident, reflecting the national planning policy
reaction to significant urban flooding events in Scotland in the early – mid 1990s (NPPG7
etc). Flood risk influences options for strategic land releases for future development. Few
areas are ‘protected’ by flood banks/walls, except at Bridge of Allan and along the estuary.
This does at least mean that catastrophic failure of defences and rapid inundation, with
attendant risk to lives, is less likely to be a hazard in the Plan area. (Sea-level rise is
happening but is affected by so many factors that predictions vary widely. Not least of the
complications in east Scotland is the rise in relative land levels due to continuing post-glacial
adjustments. A rise in relative sea level of some 20cms over the next 30 years seems a
reasonable estimate. Adapting to climate change - UK Climate Projections (June 2009,
                                                              rd
DEFRA; NB – Vanessa Kirkbride of SNH at seminar on 23 Sept suggested 7mm per annum
– which is very similar - but that isostatic rebound may have ceased). The Council now seeks
flood risk assessments in relation to most significant developments adjacent to watercourses.
SuDS drainage schemes are sought for all development sites, unless an exception can be
justified on engineering grounds. There is no specific reference in current planning policies
to water supply and little to catchment management and water quality.

        Legislation, national planning policy and guidance

2.2      The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act, 2003 introduced the term
‘sustainable flood management’ and requires Councils and others to pursue it, but without
defining the term or the roles envisaged. The Scottish Parliament has recently passed new
legislation – the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 - which places new duties upon
SEPA and Councils to approach ‘sustainable flood management’ by means of co-operative
catchment-based ‘flood risk management plans’ (The new Act and attendant duties and
responsibilities will not come fully into place until about March 2010, when the existing Act
governing flood prevention activities is rescinded, and the deadline for the first FRMPs is
September 2015).

2.3     The Flood Risk Management Act contains, inter alia, provisions for:

           SEPA to do ‘flood risk assessments’ to identify ‘vulnerable areas’ within each
            ‘flood risk management district’ (= river basin district; as defined in WEWS Act
            this is ‘Scotland’, but Ministers can define other areas so this may be the main
            river catchments as in River Basin Management Planning – see para 2.15) by
            December 2011;



File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
           SEPA to prepare strategic ‘flood risk management plans’ for the ‘districts’;
           SEPA to identify ‘local plan districts’ from the ‘potentially vulnerable areas’
            within the ‘districts’ and LAs [in consort with other LAs as necessary] then to
            prepare ‘local flood risk management plans’ (i.e. action plans);
           LAs to prepare maps of ‘bodies of water’ (including SuDS schemes) and to
            inspect and assess these on a regular basis for their potential contribution to
            flood risk;
           SW to assess flood risk from sewerage systems (SW are already modelling
            their system in Stirling itself to determine where the ‘pinch points’ in pipe
            capacity are, as there are areas where foul water surcharging occurs during
            heavy rainfall);

The Act still does not define ‘sustainable flood management’, but includes provision for SEPA
to consider the potential contribution to flood risk management of alteration of ‘natural
features’ (Sec. 20(2) – “For the purposes of this Act, natural features and characteristics
include such features and characteristics which can assist in the retention of flood water,
whether on a permanent or temporary basis, (such as flood plains, woodlands and wetlands)
or in slowing the flow of such water (such as woodlands and other vegetation), those which
contribute to the transporting and depositing of sediment, and the shape of rivers and coastal
areas”). The Act does not have many specific implications for Planning Authorities. It does
refer to areas of low, medium and high risk of flooding and, unlike national planning guidance,
defines the medium risk threshold in terms of the 1 in 100 year flood rather than the 1 in 200
year flood, but it is understood that SEPA will continue to work to the 1 in 200 year flood
probability. The basic duty of local authorities (and SEPA, etc) under the Act is that they
“must exercise their flood risk related functions with a view to reducing overall flood risk”.
[Part1, Sec1 clause 1 - General Duty]

2.4     National planning policy and guidance is contained in the SPP (2010), which has
quite detailed advice on flood risk avoidance and drainage. It requires planning authorities
to:-
      ‘take the probability of flooding from all sources … into account when preparing
        development plans and determining planning applications’
      Refuse permission to develop in areas with ‘a significant probability of being affected
        by flooding’
      Refuse permission to develop in areas where it would ‘increase the probability of
        flooding elsewhere’
      Adopt ‘a precautionary approach’ when taking decisions where flood risk is an issue
      Avoid piecemeal reduction of the storage capacity of flood plains
      Where exceptionally infrastructure development is permitted on flood plains it should
        be flood-resilient
      Development ‘should not take place on land that could otherwise contribute to
        managing flood risk’
      Adhere to the guidance in the flood risk framework
      Adopt a settlement strategy that takes account of the potential risks from flooding
      ‘identify sites or areas constrained by flood risk on the basis of the risk framework’
      ‘indicate circumstances where a freeboard allowance should apply’
      Indicate when/where a drainage assessment will be required
      ‘indicate when water resistant materials and forms of construction will be appropriate’
      ‘where flood protection measures will be necessary to enable a development to
        proceed” seek ‘a thorough justification including an examination of alternative options’
      Ensure flood risk management measures do not lead to deterioration in water quality
        or habitats (‘the ecological status of the water environment’)
      Only approve land raising where compensatory storage is provided, no ‘islands’ of
        development are created, and the raised area is ‘set back from the bank of the
        watercourse’; major proposals for land raising should only come forward through the
        development plan
      Incorporate in the development plan the legal requirements for SuDS




File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
       Watercourses should not be culverted as part of new development, unless as part of
        a scheme to manage flood risk, and existing culverts should be opened wherever
        possible.

‘Proposals for development which would require new flood risk management measures
should only be promoted through the development plan’.

2.6     SEPA is introducing standardised consultation responses and other measures so that
its consultative role vis-à-vis Planning Authorities can concentrate on priority areas of
concern, such as flooding. They expect Councils to rely more on their own staff. Stirling now
has two specialist Flood Officers and their roles in relation to Development Management have
been agreed. However, as indicated above, the 2009 Act will place new duties and
responsibilities on the Council, and the role and responsibilities of the Flood Officers may
need to be re-defined and expanded.

        Other Relevant Studies

2.7     The Scottish Executive reviewed the effectiveness of existing (Flood Prevention Act
1961) flood alleviation schemes, including the one in Bridge of Allan. Stirling Council has also
reviewed existing flood ‘prevention’ schemes and has commissioned major flood risk studies
of the Allan Water and of the River Forth through Stirling and down to the estuary. The
Council’s Flood Officers have also completed flood studies for Fintry, Aberfoyle, Callander
(2005 report and 2009 report on small watercourses), Rural River Forth and Rural River Teith,
and carried out damage risk assessments for Bridge of Allan and Stirling and a geotechnical
assessment of the Allanvale embankment (The result of the geotechnical assessment implies
a standard of protection only up to a 5-year return period event). Associated work on terrain
modelling (LIDAR surveys) has refined local knowledge of how floods are likely to spread and
potential water depths.

2.8      Therefore the larger known potentially floodable areas have been confirmed and
additional flood risk areas identified, with all these areas mapped in detail (now considered to
be more accurate than the currently published SEPA maps). These studies do not remove
the need for site - specific flood risk assessments if development is proposed within the
mapped areas. Flood risk associated with small watercourses and flooding due to
surcharging from drainage networks has in the main still to be investigated. Small
watercourses can ‘flash flood’ due to localised heavy rainfall and the attendant flood risks
have to be investigated on a site by site basis as and when development proposals come
forward. SEPA advise that all surface water drainage be directed to soakaways (i.e SuDS)
rather than the public sewers. It is proposed under the new legislation that Scottish Water will
investigate flooding from urban drainage systems.

        Local Considerations Policy Usage – Recommended policy direction

2.9       Incoming planning applications are routinely scanned by Planning and Flood Officers
and flood risk assessments sought where appropriate. Both the SEPA and Council flood risk
mapping is available on the Council’s GIS. While there has been no formal monitoring of
these Policies, consultation protocols in place with SEPA (recently amended and updated by
letter from SEPA) and with the Council’s Flood Officers (based in the Roads Service) ensure
that flood risk and drainage issues, in relevant cases, are carefully considered during the
Development Management process. Knowledge of the areas affected by fluvial flooding is
now such that new development near the main rivers is located to avoid flood risk (insofar as
current knowledge and predictive models can assess). There are believed to be only three
developments (two housing; one recreation/sport – all close to the River Forth within the City
area) that involve either land raising or compensatory flood storage.

2.10     Policy ENV 9 (1-4) in the Structure Plan and the updated E61and E62 in Local Plan
Alteration 1A are still considered to provide a reasonable basis for the planning approach to
flood risk and flood attenuation. However, their status in relation to other material
considerations is perhaps less clear. Unfortunately there have been a small number of cases
(noted above) of sites where flood risk is now predicted but planning permission has still been



File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
granted. These are largely urban sites that have for historic reasons taken a long time to
move from proposal to development but were to a significant degree committed to
development at a time when flood risk thresholds were different. It is recommended that
significant flood risk be regarded as an absolute constraint upon any future planning
decisions, with a very clear statement of how and why exceptions may be permitted (always
accepting that a few developments and activities needing or facilitating access to water
bodies, eg for recreational purposes, can take place where risks can be managed
adequately). One policy should cover avoidance of flood risk areas and links to flood risk
management planning; a second policy should cover the requirements for SuDS and DIAs,
including the existing policy on culverts. Detailed prescriptions for FRAs, SuDS and DIAs are
appropriate subjects for Supplementary Planning Guidance.

   n.b. SW uses ‘DIA’ to stand for ‘Development Impact Assessment’ – all impacts on its
   assets.

2.11     SuDS is only in part a flood alleviation tool (and is discussed below in terms of water
quality). Given the tendency towards infill developments and higher density in new
developments, the balance in urban areas between ‘hard’ surface and ‘soft’ areas able to
absorb and store water is changing and needs to be kept under review.

2.12     Any requirements arising from the new Area and Local Flood Risk Management
Plans should be incorporated or reflected in the Local Development Plan (or cross-referenced
from it), but the current LDP should be well-advanced or adopted before the first Flood Risk
Management Act plans are in place. The Act will deal with flooding from all sources and so
planning policies may need to place more emphasis on Drainage Impact Assessments - a
more sophisticated approach than the largely site-by-site approach currently adopted for
SuDS. It may be desirable to include in the LDP detailed small-catchment plans of the urban
areas so that we know where surface water from proposed development sites will be going,
and cumulative effects can be considered.

Water quality and RBMP:

        Current Development Plan Position

2.13    Structure Plan Policy ENV9 - Water Resources Management aims to ensure that all
development avoids unacceptable harmful effects on the water environment but in detail is
mainly about avoidance of flood risk. The Structure Plan merely notes the future introduction
of catchment-based river basin planning.

Related policies in the Local Plan were updated in Alteration 1A to reflect national planning
guidance on flood risk and SEPA advice on adoption of SuDS as a standard approach to site
drainage, and avoidance of culverting. Policies are only peripherally concerned with water
quality, insofar as it affects wetland ecology.

Structure Plan –
ENV9(1) – Protect flood plains; ENV9(3) – Use of SuDS for site drainage: ENV9(5) – Protect
ecological and landscape characteristics of the Estuary.

Local Plan –
E61(2) – Development to avoid affecting wetland ecology; E62(1) - Use of SuDS for site
drainage; E62(2) – No culverts; reinstate natural watercourses.

2.14    SuDS is now the favoured option for surface water drainage on development sites,
and is seen as an integral part of ‘sustainable development’ (SEPA policy; PAN61, PAN69
“Since April 2006, all new developments have to be drained by a sustainable urban drainage
system if rainwater run-off from the development is to be discharged to the water
environment”. Scotland RBMP, Ch 3, 7.4.2). It operates on the principle of retention of water
on or near the site, so that it has the opportunity to infiltrate into the ground or evaporate. A
secondary function of SuDS infrastructure is to intercept pollutants and suspended particles
by directing surface water run-off into settling ponds or swales and sometimes through reed-



File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
beds. By reducing the volume and increasing the quality of water entering other elements of
the drainage system this leaves the latter better able to cope or have spare capacity.

SuDS is also integrated into road design. The following quotes from “SUDS for Roads”
(Pittner & Allerton, 2009, for SUDS Working Party, SCOTS, et al) set out the current
responsibilities for roads and road corridors and the premises served:

   “The trunk road network, including strategic roads and motorways, and associated
   surface water drainage, are the responsibility of Transport Scotland.” (1.2.10)

   “The provision of new roads for developments is controlled and consented by the
   roads authority through the Road Construction Consent (RCC) process, governed by
   Section 21 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. … The design would also include
   details of how the road surface is to be drained and what SUDS measures are to be
   incorporated.” (1.2.11)

   “Under Section 31 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 the roads authority may
   construct or lay drains, erect and maintain barriers for diversion of surface waters,
   scour, cleanse and keep open all drains, and drain surface water into any inland
   waters or tidal waters for the purpose of draining a public or proposed public road.”
   (1.2.13)

   “The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968[8] requires Scottish Water to effectively drain
   surface water from roofs and paved areas within the curtilage of premises.” (1.2.14)

   “Scottish Water has no obligation to drain roads, footways or paved surfaces out with
   the curtilage of premises, or to drain groundwater or accept land drainage
   connections. Scottish Water may choose to accept road runoff into their surface
   water drainage system through agreement with the roads authority under the terms
   outlined in Section 7 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.” (1.2.15).

“SUDS for Roads” goes on to provide detailed design guidance. There is an agreed division
of maintenance responsibility for SuDS scheme elements between Scottish Water and Local
Authority Roads services. Where they are to be maintained by Scottish Water, new
development drainage systems must comply with the technical design standards for
sustainable urban drainage systems set out in Sewers for Scotland 2 (Scottish Water).

        Legislation, national planning policy and guidance

2.15     SEPA is the principal regulating agency responsible for water quality in Scotland,
while Scottish Water operate most of the infrastructure involved in water purification and
treatment of pollution. The EU Water Framework Directive has been transposed into Scots
law by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (the ‘WEWS Act’).
The Directive has as its principal aim the maintenance, and where possible the improvement,
of water quality in inland waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The Act embodies the
principle that all rivers and coastal waters with entirely Scottish catchments form one River
Basin District for catchment management purposes. Sub-basin management planning for
smaller areas commenced in 2006 and the first round of ‘River Basin Management Plans’
(RBMP) were adopted by Ministers in December 2009. They contain water quality targets for
2015 and beyond and will be updated on a six – year cycle. The Northern part of the LDP
area is in the Tay catchment area; most of the Southern part (and the areas likely to be
affected by significant development proposals) is in the Forth basin, and in the south-west the
Endrick and Blane valleys are part of the Clyde drainage catchment. SEPA is the lead
Authority for RBMPs and Councils are involved in and support the process, as Area Advisory
Group members and as management and regulatory authorities.

2.16     For RBMP purposes ‘water quality’ is assessed for each ‘water body’ and has a broad
definition that takes in the ‘traditional’ chemical purity measures but also ecological measures
and physical characteristics. Because of the latter factor in particular, rivers and lochs in the
area apparently do not rate so highly as under the previous classification system. This is



File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
largely due to the number of water supply and hydro – power installations in the Council area
(and the National Park). The RBMP process has consisted of setting out the definitions of
water bodies, of water quality (‘classification’ - ‘good ecological status’ is the basic objective)
and ‘measures’. The ‘measures’ are the policies, plans, projects, operating practices, etc that
are gathered together in these wide-ranging Plans as contributing to maintaining or improving
one or more aspects of water quality. They range from funding policies encouraging
reductions in polluting run-off (‘diffuse pollution’) from agricultural land, to specific projects
such as upgrading a sewer outfall or removing a barrier to migratory fish. Overall, diffuse
pollution from agriculture is the greatest problem. The Council will require to assess how
planning policies and proposals may impact on water bodies, and on ‘measures’. The aim
should be to reinforce positive improvements and avoid adverse impacts. The River Basin
Management Plan processes acknowledge the significance of the plan-led Development
Planning system, but many, if not most, of the actions and activities potentially affecting water
bodies are regulated through other Agencies (such as SEPA’s CARS and other regulations
and licensing systems). Improved joint working with SEPA (and Scottish Water and others)
will be required.

2.17      The WEWS Act places a requirement on Scottish Ministers, SEPA and responsible
authorities to “so far as practicable … integrate and co-ordinate the exercise of their
respective functions”. The Act also states that, in exercising their functions (so far as
affecting a river basin district) all public bodies must have regard to River Basin Management
Plans.” In particular, Planning Authorities must have regard to the Scotland RBMP when
preparing development plans. RBMPs are (in their current form) not really ‘plans’ or
strategies in that they do not seem to provide a mechanism for prioritising or targeting actions
to improve water quality. There is some work being done within SEPA to prioritise
catchments for action regarding diffuse pollution. In this regard, provisionally, the Tay seems
likely to be the only priority catchment affecting our area.

        Other Relevant Studies

2.18   SEPA is also the responsible authority for contaminated land sites that are affecting a
water body (‘Special Sites’). (Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA; Contaminated
Land (Scotland) Regulations, 2000). There are as yet no such sites designated in the LDP
area.

2.19     The upper Forth estuary may in future be subject to marine planning requirements.
The Marine (Scotland) Bill was passed in February 2010. Orders and Regulations governing
its implementation will follow over the next two years. There will be ‘regional Marine Plans’ for
each ‘Scottish Marine Region’, with an overall national marine plan. A new agency – ‘Marine
Scotland’ – has overall planning responsibility, with the degree of plan-making delegation to
other agencies and Local Authorities yet to be established.

        Local Considerations Policy Usage – Recommended policy direction

2.20     As indicated, many actions and activities affecting water quality are not amenable to
Planning control (eg diffuse pollution from agriculture). Monitoring and effectiveness of
existing policies therefore does not apply. For the new Plan, a very general water quality
protection policy, also covering the requirement to take RBMP into account in planning
decisions and development plan preparation is recommended. A further policy may be
required if the Marine Bill has implications for the Council area.

Water Supply and Foul Drainage:

        Current Development Plan Position

2.21    The Structure Plan and Local Plan only address water supply and foul sewage
disposal and treatment in the text, without direct references in policy. Structure Plan policy
INF1 – General Policy on Infrastructure makes provision for developers to install infrastructure
outwith the statutory provider’s current investment programmes. Foul drainage disposal and
treatment capacity may be an issue affecting the timing of development, however Scottish



File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
Water will work with developers, local authorities and other agencies to ensure that
development can proceed. Water supply is not generally a problem in the Council area.

        Legislation, national planning policy and guidance

2.22      The Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 set up Scottish Water (SW) by merging the
three pre-existing area water authorities, and the WEWS Act establishes SW as the statutory
body responsible for water supply and sewerage. It is a commercial concern, not a
Government agency (but is, along with SEPA, a ‘key agency’ for LDP preparation purposes).
The capacities of existing waste water treatment works (and the feeder sewer network) and
priorities for future investment programming by SW are very significant factors in water quality
management and development planning. The Scottish Government has given SW a more
specific remit to support new development and the agency has adopted forward planning
procedures aimed at facilitating this. ‘Asset Capacity’ data is displayed on the agency’s
website. Water supply is generally not a problem in the area, but waste water treatment
capacities are limited in many rural settlements. Where this is the case there is a need to
engage early with SW and SEPA to seek the best solution to enable development to proceed.
SW have indicated that they are now able to test potential development scenarios against
their asset planning model.

    From Scotland RBMP, Ch 2, p.39:
    “Over 97% of the urban waste water that is discharged to the water environment is
    collected, treated and discharged by Scottish Water. Addressing the impacts caused
    by these discharges typically involves measures such as major upgrades to sewage
    treatment works or the relocation of discharges of treated urban waste water by
    means of new trunk sewers. Over the last few decades, measures have been
    implemented to improve the majority of discharges of urban waste water. The
    remaining impacts are amongst the most difficult impacts on the water environment to
    solve. Making the improvements needed to achieve good water quality in waters
    affected by these discharges requires considerable investment of time and resources
    to plan and design the works, to obtain the necessary development permissions and
    to undertake the capital engineering works.              Designing effective solutions is
    necessarily a lengthy and complex process. If adequate time and expertise is not
    invested, the solutions identified are likely to fail to deliver or to cost much more than
    necessary. Attempting to develop and implement solutions for all the impacts
    resulting from point source discharges of urban waste water by 2015 will result in
    schemes failing to deliver or incurring disproportionate expense. Investment by
    Scottish Water in environmental improvements is planned through a process known
    as Quality and Standards”.


2.23    Enabling Development – role of SW:

SW’s 5 Criteria for providing additional capacity:

    1. “The development is supported by the Local Plan and has full planning permission. If
       the capacity in the Scottish Water system is the only reason preventing a
       development gaining full planning [permission] then outline planning [permission]
       would be accepted.
    2. The developer can confirm land ownership or control through a solicitor’s letter.
    3. The developer can confirm plans are in place to mitigate any network constraints that
       will be created by the development through a Minute of agreement with [SW] or
       alternatively a letter showing commitment to mitigate network impact through Part 3
       investment.
    4. The developer confirms any time remaining on current planning permissions with the
       local council.
    5. The developer can demonstrate reasonable proposals in terms of the developments’s
       annual build rate.”




File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
2.24    Most of the Local Development Plan area receives its water supply from the Loch
Turret reservoir in Perthshire. A number of small local supplies have been replaced by it in
recent years, eg the Touch Reservoirs. The area also contains reservoirs that supply water to
other areas, notably Carron Valley. Several hundred rural properties, mostly houses, derive
their water from private sources, such a burn intakes. The Council’s Environmental Health
service monitors these private supplies.

2.25    The Council is currently responsible for ensuring that reservoir dams are inspected
periodically by an appropriately qualified engineer to ensure their safety. The Flood Risk
Management (Scotland) Act 2009 requires SEPA to take over these responsibilities. It also
introduces the concept of ‘flood plans’ for individual reservoirs. The Government is currently
consulting on whether these plans will be required to include ‘inundation maps’.

        Other Relevant Studies

2.26      Scottish Water maintains an Asset capacity website which gives a broad indication of
the status of their infrastructure and its capacity to serve additional development (measured
as house units). (See Appendix 1 for relevant sewage treatment works capacity data). In
terms of water supply, no community is restricted to anything less than 155 additional units;
i.e. in general water supply is not a constraint upon development.

2.27     The foul sewage treatment capacity in many rural settlements will require
investigation before commitments to new development can be considered. Some areas
where we are unlikely to be looking for major development have significant capacity.
However, there is likely to be a useful match of capacity and development potential at Balfron,
Fallin, Plean, Cowie, Dunblane and Stirling. (While Stirling STW is satisfactory in terms of
capacity to accept new connections it may be problematic in terms of flood risk, sea level rise
and siting relative to neighbouring development. However, SW general comment: "Scottish
Water is concerned that our assets are increasingly under pressure from the encroachment
by new development, particularly housing. The impact of our assets on amenity is now
greatly improved, and with increasing "boundary limit" noise and odour conditions being
imposed on new development or through abatement, for example, in line with the new Code
of Practice on Assessment and Control of Odour Nuisance from Wastewater Treatment
Works. We would not suggest a return to the out-moded concept of the "cordon sanitaire"
around our assets. However, the encroachment of development on our assets may in some
instances reduce our ability to upgrade these assets in line with development plan objectives.
Scottish Water does not wish to prevent development in the land surrounding our assets, but
seeks greater recognition of the potential impact on the water and wastewater infrastructure
when development proposals are assessed.")

2.28     Scottish Water are funded to provide additional capacity at their treatment works
where they know development will come forward and they will work with developers, local
authorities and other agencies such as SEPA to ensure that development can begin to
proceed in the interim period if necessary. Developers have to provide or contribute to water
and drainage infrastructure. Scottish Water are committed to providing a reasonable cost
contribution to drainage connections for housing developments but not for
commercial/industrial developments. Scottish Water are willing to assess options ahead of
development/development plans, rather than just responding to committed developments.
(SW is also deferring the timing of payments for system connections in order to financially
assist developers during the current recession).

        Local Considerations Policy Usage – Recommended policy direction

2.29     These are not matters currently covered by planning policy. It may be desirable to
make some policy statement about the desirability of limiting private foul drainage
arrangements to a particular scale of development (eg single houses in the countryside) and
conversely to requiring communal treatment works to be installed (eg in ‘small settlements’
situations – if that policy is pursued).

   From Scotland RBMP:



File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
      “Where pollution is caused by sewage from small settlements without sewerage
      systems, it may no longer be possible to allow development without causing
      environmental damage and affecting the quality of life of local people. In such
      circumstances SEPA typically identifies the settlement as requiring the provision of a
      public drainage system under the Quality and Standards investment programme. The
      provision of ‘first time sewerage’ is an important mechanism to remove constraints on
      rural development.”

3.0       Summary recommendations                    for    policy        content    of      Local
          Development Plan and SPG
3.1       It is suggested that the current policy coverage could be simplified as follows:

       Existing policies:                 Suggested policies:              Suggested SPG
       ENV9(1) – Protect flood plains     Water 1 – Promote flood
       ENV9(2) – Avoid flood risk         risk avoidance as 1st choice
       ENV9(5) – Estuary flooding         for developments, etc; do
       E61(1) - Requirement for FRAs      not materially increase risk
       E61(2) – Avoid flood risk          of flooding elsewhere; &
                                          take into account FRMPs.         SPG – FRAs, DIAs,
       E61(3) - Exceptions                Policy to ‘build in’ climate     SuDS (SEPA have
                                          change resilience                provided more
       ENV9(3) – SuDS                     Water 2 – Require DIAs &         detailed guidance
       ENV9(4) – Long term                SuDS; consider impacts of        on what should be
       management                         new development on water         included)
       E62(1) - SuDS                      management infrastructure
                                          – with climate change
                                          factors; no culverts/
       E62(2) – No culverts; reinstate    reinstate water courses
       natural watercourses               affected by culverts or other
                                          redundant engineering
                                          structures
                                          Water 3 – Water resources
                                          management; take into
                                          account RBMPs; protect
                                          water quality, including
                                          groundwater and wetlands
                                          Water 4 – Take into
                                          account Marine Bill (if
                                          relevant)

It has to be made clear that water management is a key consideration in planning for new
development because:
      The Water Framework Directive looks for water quality to be enhanced, and at
         minimum maintained;
      Many of the receiving watercourses for drainage effluents are European status
         designated habitats for wildlife conservation;
      Climate change increases the risks of flooding, through changes in weather patterns
         and rising sea level;
      Availability of water infrastructure, especially drainage and sewage treatment
         capacity, is a potentially critical (and expensive) factor in the location and phasing of
         new development.

Therefore all of the above aspects need to be represented at strategic level in policy terms,
although much detail may be ‘delegated’ to development management policies.

3.2     The Plan needs to support RBMP insofar as it can – given that many of the
’measures’ involved in improving/maintaining water quality are not ‘development’ and are
therefore not obviously Planning matters. The Local Development Plan is likely to support



File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
RBMP objectives indirectly through some of its wildlife conservation, flood avoidance and site
drainage requirements. It may also be appropriate to set out information on river catchments
and to consider how much of the Plan could be structured around them. RBMP and flood risk
management plans, (both catchment-based) will require working with neighbouring Councils
and other agencies. RBMP measures may also act as a constraint (welcome or otherwise) to
development in some areas.

3.3     An alternative policy framework could be based around the Water Framework
Directive / RBMP and the Flood Risk Management Act, with the role of the Local
Development Plan seen as being to contribute to water quality management and flood
avoidance respectively. However the implementation timescale of the Flood act, in particular,
would perhaps make such an approach rather untidy in the first round of LDPs.

4.0     Links to other Topics/Policy Areas
4.1     There are two possible candidates, from a water management point of view, for
providing an overall structure for the Local Development Plan:

               Major river catchments
               Flood avoidance

The Green Network Topic Paper suggests that both factors can and should be included in a
green network approach to the strategy and vision for the Local Development Plan.

4.2     In terms of links to other Topic/Policy areas, the following may be relevant:

               Environmental Enhancement – eg re-‘naturalisation’ of river channels
               Rural Development (Existing policy allowing relocation of an existing house
                away from a flood risk area)
               Forestry
               Climate change adaptation


5.0    References:
Stirling Flood Studies, LIDAR surveys, geotechnical reports
Stirling Council Biennial Flood Report, November 2009
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP 2010)
SEPA Interim Position Statement on Planning and Flooding - July 2009
Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009
Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003
Marine Bill (consultation document) (July 2008)
Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002
PAN69 - Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding
Drainage Assessment – A Guide for Scotland. (SEPA 2005)
Adapting to climate change - UK Climate Projections (June 2009, DEFRA)
‘SUDS for Roads’ (Pittner & Allerton, 2009, for SUDS Working Party, SCOTS, et al)
RBMPs for Scotland, Forth, Tay and Clyde:
        http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx
        http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning/significant_issues.aspx



6.0    Appendices:
1)      Scottish Water assets:
        As at May 2009 the relevant sewage treatment works capacity data for the Council
        planning area was as follows:




File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc
                  SW Asset                            Capacity
                  ASHFIELD NORTH STW                  Less than 10
                  ASHFIELD SOUTH STW                  Less than 10
                  ASHFIELD WEST STW                   Less than 10
                  BALFRON STW                         116
                  BANDEATH STW                        Less than 10
                  BUCHLYVIE STW                       Less than 10
                  CAMBUSKENNETH STW                   Less than 10
                  DEANSTON STW                        Less than 10
                  FALLIN STW                          93
                  FINTRY STW                          142
                  GARGUNNOCK STW                      Less than 10
                  KILLEARN STW                        Less than 10
                  KINBUCK STW                         Less than 10
                  PLEAN STW                           450
                  STRATHBLANE STW                     940
                  THORNHILL STW                       76
                  DUNBLANE STW                        994
                  COWIE STW                           182
                  DOUNE STW                           Less than 10
                  KILLIN STW                          68
                  KIPPEN STW                          Less than 10
                  STIRLING STW                        1401

2)    Map of river catchment areas?

3)    Map of SEPA / Council flood risk areas?




File Name: S:\LDP&LHS\LDP Topic Papers\FINAL TOPIC PAPERS\Topic Paper 31 Water.doc

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:2/2/2013
language:English
pages:12