Leek Wootton Neighbourhood Plan
Search representations
Results for Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice] search
New searchComment
Leek Wootton Neighbourhood Plan
LW11
Representation ID: 70826
Received: 13/10/2017
Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]
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.
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]
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.'
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]
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.
Please see attached documents