Although we do not have a preferred scenario we concur that which ever level of growth is adopted it must be the right type of development in the right place. For example it would be unsuitable to place highly vulnerable development such as mobile homes in an area that was at high probability of flood risk. A more suitable use would be a water-compatible use, such as amenity open space.

Scenario One, Two and Three
Regardless of the level of development there will always be an increased risk of flooding due to climate change.

The seventh point of the Important Issues from each scenario implies there will be building on farm land possibly causing flooding. If following the guidelines within PPS25 there should be no increase in flood risk from either pluvial or fluvial sources. It also implies money will go towards flood defence schemes. It must be made clear that flood defences should only protect existing development at risk of flooding. New flood defences should not be constructed to enable new development.

All three scenarios refer to building on farmland, which would be greenfield. Development on brownfield land also has the potential to increase flood risk due to the possibility of increased surface water run off or increased intensity of use therefore making less space for water. We therefore consider the opportunities, strengths and weaknesses of brownfield land for each option should also be considered. For example, scenario one offers little opportunity for derelict sites to be redeveloped however scenario three may have many. It must also be considered that some brownfield sites are also currently at risk of flooding and may not be suitable for vulnerable uses.

Also all three scenarios refer to new development generating money to go towards flood defence schemes, we presume this is referring to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). We would like to discuss this matter further in more detail with Warwick, possible at a meeting.