Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...

The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with
Policies RT2 and SHB/1B of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy
ENV11 of the RSS and the NPPF.
2.14 Flood Risk and Drainage
Flood Risk
2.14.1 At the site specific level, SHB/1B states that proposals must make
provision for:
10) An appropriate flood risk assessment in accordance with the
requirements of PPG25.
2.14.2 In terms of flood risk the “Approved Development Brief” for the wider
site from 2003, notes that a Flood Risk Assessment will be required.
Furthermore flow attenuation should be utilised, including balancing
areas, which should form an integral part of the existing site water
features, where this is compatible with their existing drainage function
and that where SUDS is not feasible, filtered surface water run off
should be discharged directly to watercourses.
2.14.3 At a regional policy level then Policy ENV1 of the RSS, notes that
“Region will manage flood risk pro-actively by reducing the causes of
flooding to existing and future development”.
2.14.4 NPPF Paragraphs 93 to 108 relate to meeting the challenge of climate
change, flooding and coastal change and should be read alongside the
NPPF Technical Guidance. In particular paragraph 94 states Local
planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and
adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk, coastal
change and water supply and demand considerations.
2.14.5 The land within the application site lies predominantly within Flood
Zone 1 which the NPPF states is at low probability of flooding having a
less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding with a
small section along the eastern boundary located in Flood Zone 2
which is at medium probability, comprising land assessed as having
between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding
(1%-0.1%), or between a 1 in 200 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of
sea flooding (0.5% - 0.1%) in any year.
2.14.6 The Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification of Technical Guidance to
the NPPF defines a Residential use as “more vulnerable” and table 3 of
the Technical Guidance to the NPPF defines a More Vulnerable use as
being appropriate development in this zone and as such the exception
test is not required.
2.14.7 In terms of the part of the site that falls within Flood Zone 2, a
sequential test would be required if this part of the site was to be
207