Leek Wootton Neighbourhood Plan

Search representations

Results for Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice] search

New search New search

Comment

Leek Wootton Neighbourhood Plan

LW11

Representation ID: 70826

Received: 13/10/2017

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Representation Summary:

Road Safety Matters: Should the Neighbourhood Plan proposal require any changes to the highway i.e. speed limits, traffic calming measures they will need to meet the relevant criteria and any required consultation. In addition, funding to achieve these should be provided by the proposed development.

Public Health Matters: It is considered that our Neighbourhood Development Planning for Health Document should be used as a guide to promote healthy, active communities through the Neighbourhood planning process.

Flood Risk Matters: We suggest that consideration of SUDS should be considered when applications for both minor and major sites are put forward.

Full text:

Please see attached documents

Support

Leek Wootton Neighbourhood Plan

LW4

Representation ID: 70827

Received: 13/10/2017

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Representation Summary:

Multi-functional Green Infrastructure - we like this section on flood risk, especially the mentioned benefits of green infrastructure to flood mitigation and the local environment, as well as Policy LW4 - '6. Proposals should incorporate sustainable drainage techniques (SUDS) and include the use of grey water recycling where possible.'

Full text:

Please see attached documents

Comment

Leek Wootton Neighbourhood Plan

LW8

Representation ID: 70828

Received: 13/10/2017

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Representation Summary:

Policy LW8 - There is no overall statement on the use of SUDS and attenuation to Greenfield runoff rates. This policy covers smaller infill sites that the FRM team at WCC are not statutory consultee for so should give sufficient detail to ensure that this is done. We would suggest that this policy states that new developments should restrict surface water discharges to Greenfield rates. Additionally, it should state that a mention to Greenfield rates and that restricting flows to less than 5 l/s is viable so should not be considered a minimum discharge rate, and would be really useful for developers.

Full text:

Please see attached documents

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.