Technical Advice Note 15: Development, flooding and ...

WG38816

Technical Advice Note 15: Development, flooding and coastal erosion

September 2021

Mae’r ddogfen yma hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg. This document is also available in Welsh.

© Crown Copyright Digital ISBN 978-1-80195-942-1

Welsh Government

Consultation Report and summary of responses

Contents Chapter

Page

1 Introduction

3

2 Consultation and engagement

3

3 Key proposals

4

4 Overview of responses and the key changes

6

5 Detailed summary of consultation responses and Welsh Government responses

8

Appendix The organisations and individuals that submitted representations

38

3

1. Introduction

1.1 The Welsh Government conducted a 14 week public consultation on new national planning policy guidance for development in areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion with the publication of a draft Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15: Development, flooding and coastal erosion. Comments on this document were invited over the period 9 October 2019 to the 17 January 2020.

1.2 The draft proposed that an updated TAN 15 would replace national planning policy guidance on: development and flood risk contained in the 2004 version of TAN 15; and on coastal erosion contained in TAN 14: Coastal Planning (dated March 1998). Both TAN 14 and the 2004 version of TAN 15 were proposed to be cancelled as a result.

1.3 It was considered necessary to update national planning policy on flooding

and coastal erosion as a result of a 2017 review on its effectiveness. Further, wider technical updates, including the ability for Natural Resources Wales to provide much improved flooding and coastal erosion mapping, lent themselves to an update in order to ensure current planning policies on this issue are relevant and fit for purpose.

1.4 A separate and informal consultation on the draft Flood Map for Planning was

carried out from 12 November 2020 to 8 January 2021. The Flood Map for Planning was proposed in the draft TAN 15 as a replacement for the current Development Advice Map. Details of the consultation were issued to all those organisations and individuals that responded to the main consultation on the TAN 15 document.

2. Consultation and engagement

2.1 Details of the consultation were published on the Welsh Government’s website throughout its duration. The Welsh Government maintains a list of established stakeholders in the planning system and these were all notified of the consultation by direct email on the first day of the consultation. These stakeholders comprise the Chief Executives and Chief Planning Officers at the 25 local planning authorities (LPAs), 23 statutory consultees, 101 non-statutory consultees and 5 special interest groups. Other contacts known to have an interest in the subject matter, including people who have corresponded with the Welsh Government, were also notified of the consultation.

2.2 Opportunities taken to raise awareness of the consultation included meetings with the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Committee and the Planning Officers Society Wales, and the regular bulletins and publications of RTPI Cymru.

https://gov.wales/technical-advice-note-15-development-flooding-and-coastal-erosion

4

3. Key proposals

3.1 The consultation version of TAN 15 contained a number of proposed changes including:

Factual updates to terminology and references – e.g. Environment Agency Wales replaced by Natural Resources Wales.

Replacing the Development Advice Map with a new Wales Flood Map, to be maintained by Natural Resources Wales. The Wales Flood Map will show areas at high/medium risk (zone 3), low risk (zone 2) and very low risk (zone 1) as three separate flood zones.

Summary of proposed policy for the new flood zones

Name of Flood Zone

Highly Vulnerable Development (inc. housing)

Less Vulnerable Development

Zone 1 Very Low Risk

All types of development are acceptable in principle

Zone 2 Low Risk

Flood Consequences Assessment required. Any development must meet strict tests. If tests are passed, the development should be designed to be flood-resilient as it cannot be guaranteed that development will not experience flooding. Where there are flood defences it is more likely the tests can be passed

Zone 3 Medium and High risk

Developments should not be proposed. Planning Authorities should discourage developers from preparing speculative Flood Consequences Assessments.

Flood Consequences Assessment required. Any development must meet strict tests. If tests are passed, the development should be designed to be flood-resilient as it should be recognised that development is likely to experience flooding. Where there are flood defences it is more likely the tests can be passed

Integrating surface water mapping into the new Wales Flood Map, to replace the Zone B advisory classification contained within the Development Advice Map.

Changes to the Development Categories, including a new ‘water compatible development’ category. Land-uses such as renewable energy have been added to the guidance, and some development types have changed categories.

https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2019-10/technical-advice-note-15-development-flooding-and-coastal-erosion.pdf

5

Emphasising the importance of the Development Plan and highlighting the need for comprehensive Strategic Flood Consequences Assessments to inform development strategies, site selection and planning policies.

Guidance on how major regeneration initiatives affecting communities located in areas of flood risk should be progressed through national and regional levels of the planning system.

Updating guidance on coastal erosion currently set out in TAN 14 and integrating it within TAN 15. This will enable TAN 14 to be cancelled.

Guidance in relation to the justification and acceptability tests has been updated to make it clear that planning authorities should not consider proposals for highly vulnerable development in high and medium risk areas (zone 3).

New advice on making development resilient to flooding and on the consideration when proposing new or improved flood defences.

6

4. Overview of responses and the key changes

4.1 A total of 77 responses were received to the consultation. The largest respondent by type was local planning authorities with 20 of the 25 providing a response, representing 31% of the total responses received. There were a further four responses from non-planning local authority departments. Responses from businesses made up 27% of the total. The public sector (excluding local authorities) made up 19% while 17% of the responses came from professional bodies or interest groups. These groups included the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Cymru, Canal & River Trust and Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. A small number of responses, 5%, were received from individuals.

4.2 A complete breakdown of the stakeholders who responded to the consultation

can be found in the Appendix of this report.

4.3 The consultation has led to a number of important and significant changes to the document. In some instances specific changes were recommended by respondents and have been directly made to the document. In other areas, the responses prompted further thought and discussions with stakeholders, including Natural Resources Wales and local government.

Businesses21 responses

27%

Local Authorities 24 responses

31%

Public Sector15 responses

19%

Professional bodies/ Interest groups

13 responses17%

Individuals4 Responses

5%

Respondent Type

Businesses

Local Authorities

Public Sector

Professional bodies/ Interest groups

Individuals

7

4.4 The most significant changes relate to the flood zones identified on the new Flood Map for Planning. The consultation responses clearly demonstrated an expectation that flood defences should justify a different (and more permissive) approach to development than in areas without defences. While the advice recognised this principle, it was important to develop a clear spatial representation of those areas where defences enable a specific policy approach. This led to the creation of the new ‘TAN 15 Defended Zones’ on the Flood Map for Planning.

4.5 The TAN 15 Defended Zones are broadly a replacement of the C1 zone on the Development Advice Map. As policy on new development is more permissive in this zone than zones without flood defences, it is important that the zones all provide a significant level of protection from flooding. A consistent definition has been applied to the identification of the TAN 15 defended zones, namely that they must provide a standard of protection of greater than 1 in 100 (plus climate change and freeboard allowances) to flood risks form rivers, or protection of greater than 1 in 200 (plus climate change and freeboard) to flood risks from the sea. These thresholds are applied across Wales, with no minimum size for the defended zones. The TAN explains that areas with defences offering lower standards of protections cannot be identified as defended zones for planning purposes.

4.6 The new TAN gives greater focus to surface water risks and the threat of flooding from ordinary or small watercourses than the predecessor document. These risks are mapped separately from the rivers and sea risks, and have different policy implications. The consultation document did not make this clear, so it was important that the final document was revised and improved.

4.7 A final area where feedback has led to a significant change is in relation to drainage arrangements on development sites. The TAN advises the preparation of a drainage statement in some circumstances, to explain how sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) will be incorporated into scheme. Since 2019 it has been a requirement for most new developments to incorporate SuDS, and to obtain approval from the SuDS Approving Body (SAB) for the arrangements. This is a separate consenting system from the planning system, but one which works most effectively when run in parallel to the planning system. However, many applicants choose to apply for planning permission first, and drainage statement is a means of summarising arrangements and avoiding tensions between the two consenting processes.

4.8 Further changes to the TAN are explained in the Welsh government responses to the consultation questions in the following chapter.

8

5. Detailed summary of consultation responses and Welsh Government responses

5.1 A summary analysis of the key findings for each consultation question is set out below, followed by the Welsh Government’s response.

5.2 It should be noted that the quantitative summary analysis provided below in the

tables is not reflective of the overall number of respondents. Instead it is based on the numbers of respondents who directly answered the questions. Wherever possible, views have been incorporated into the qualitative analysis below each table where they directly relate to the subject matter of the question, even if they were not explicitly presented as answers to the question. Most of the questions invited respondents to expand on their views; therefore much of the analysis is qualitative in nature.

9

Question 1 – Evolving from a precautionary framework to a risk-based approach

A key principle of the revised TAN 15 is to recognise different degrees of flood risk (see section 4). A new Wales Flood Map will replace the Development Advice Map and will distinguish between high/medium risk and low risk, with policies on development reflective of the degree of risk. Flood zones on the new Wales Flood Map will incorporate climate change allowances. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this change?

Question 1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

No opinion

Respondent by type

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Don’t know

No opinion

Businesses 1 8 1 5 4 1 0

Local Authority 1 13 5 3 0 0 0

Public Sector 0 5 1 1 2 0 0

Professional bodies/ Interest Groups

0 5 1 2 0 1 0

Individuals 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2 33 8 11 6 2 0

% 3% 53% 13% 18% 10% 3% 0%

10

Summary Analysis

The majority of respondents to this question (56%) were in agreement with the proposed change. A large proportion of local authorities in particular were supportive of the proposal. The views of businesses were mixed, with a split between those who were in agreement and those who disagreed with the proposed charge. Of those who were supportive of the proposed approach, a number of respondents welcomed the inclusion of climate change allowances as a consideration as part of the mapping. Some respondents were supportive due to the approach aligning with what had been done on flood risk elsewhere, referring to England in particular. Whilst the majority of respondents were supportive of the move to a risk-based approach, queries were raised on what this would mean in practice in terms of the flood zones to be designated by the Wales Flood Map. A large number of respondents considered that the Map should have been made available as part of the consultation, in order for respondents to be able to understand the implications of the proposed policy changes. The proposed changes to the flood zones from those contained in the Development Advice Map1 were also commented on and queried by a number of respondents. Some respondents requested clarity on the proposed Zone 1, including whether it would factor in climate change. A larger number of respondents raised comments and concerns around the proposed Zones 2 and 3, where it was implied that these zones (and for Zone 3 in particular) lack a true risk-based approach due to the mapping not taking into account local considerations such as existing flood defences. Comments were raised on the detrimental impact the proposed Zone 3 in particular could have on regeneration schemes for flood risk areas if failing to take into account these considerations through the mapping and proposed policy approach. In this respect, a few respondents raised comments on the terminology used for the zones, including suggesting a need to distinguish between the ‘high/medium’ flood risk zone in order to account for the potential to allow further development in the ‘medium’ risk areas. In order to fully understand the implications of the proposed policy and mapping approach, a few respondents requested an impact assessment or case study analysis of the proposals before they are published. A number of respondents queried and asked for clarity on how climate change would be factored into the mapping and policy guidance. A few respondents raised issues on the accounting of surface water mapping in this approach. In respect of the process for submitting applications in flood risk areas and the consideration of risk, a few respondents commented on the role of the Flood Consequences Assessment, including suggesting a need to assess flood risk on a site-by-site / case-by-case basis. Further comments were raised regarding the mapping with some respondents commenting on the need for regular updating of the Map and a process for challenge, where local knowledge can feed into the designations of flood risk zones by Natural Resources Wales. A few respondents raised comments concerning a need for clarity

11

on how the Flood Risk Assessment for Wales Map would apply alongside the approach proposed with the implementation of the Wales Flood Map. Other comments were raised around the applications process in general and with

regards to the wider policy content contained in the draft TAN which are not of direct

relevance to this question.

Welsh Government Response

It is recognised that presenting the draft TAN and Wales Flood Map together would have been helpful for stakeholders to fully understand the implications of the changes proposed. Nevertheless, the consultation provided an important test of the core principle of a risk-based approach to decision-making. The responses set the context for the resultant work on developing and finalising the new Wales Flood Map - which has since been developed more fully and will be known as the Flood Map for Planning. They ensured that providing clarity on the definition of zones was at the forefront of our thinking. They also ensured a thorough assessment of how to appropriately integrate flood defences into the policy approach was undertaken. The outcome is a Flood Map that has distinct zones for different degrees and sources of risk, with concise policy approaches for each zone. These approaches are risk-based. We are clear that new homes and other highly vulnerable development should not be located in the zone with highest risk of flooding from rivers and the sea because the risk is too high to individuals, households and communities. In areas where flooding can be expected to be less severe and frequent, we are clear that development on brownfield land may be appropriate if it meets the TAN 15 tests regarding the acceptability of the consequences of flooding. The integration of climate change projections into the spatial flood extents on the Flood Map was widely supported in the consultation. This is one of the most effective means we have of factoring in climate change to planning decisions. Where we know with a good degree of confidence that increased rainfall or sea level rises is likely to make an area vulnerable to flooding in the future, we have an obligation to build this knowledge into our planning decisions, in order to protect the needs and interests of future generations.

12

Question 2 – Roles and responsibilities

The revised TAN has sought to clarify the main roles and responsibilities of key organisations and agents in the planning system in respect of flooding and coastal erosion. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the TAN offers clarity?

Summary Analysis

The majority of respondents to this question (56%) considered the TAN to be ‘clear in some chapters’ at clarifying roles and responsibilities. Approximately a fifth of respondents (21%) considered the TAN to be ‘clear in all chapters’ with approximately a tenth (12%) considering the TAN to be unclear. All types of respondent in the majority considered the TAN offered clarity in either all or some of its chapters.

Question 2

Clear in all chapters

Clear in some chapters

Unclear in most or allchapters

Don't know

No opinion

Neither agree nordisagree

Respondent by type

Clear in all chapters

Clear in some

chapters

Unclear in most or all chapters

Don’t know

No opinion

Businesses 7 6 3 0 3

Local Authority 2 18 1 0 0

Public Sector 1 3 1 0 2


2 6 2 0 0

Individuals 1 1 0 0 0

Total 13 34 7 0 5

% 21% 56% 12% 0% 8%

13

Those respondents that were supportive of the approach taken in the TAN to clarifying roles and responsibilities considered that it was generally clear at doing this. Notwithstanding this, most of the respondents provided comments on where the TAN could be improved in clarifying roles and responsibilities. Many respondents commented on where clarity could be added in the TAN with regards to the roles and responsibilities of the various key agents and stakeholders for flooding and coastal erosion. Some respondents commented on the role of NRW with suggestions for further clarity regarding the nature of the technical advice they can offer on flood risk and coastal erosion and how this ties in with the role local planning authorities have in this process. Some respondents considered the TAN needs to be more explicit with regards to how developers and applicants should account for flooding and coastal erosion in development schemes. A few respondents commented on the need for increased recognition of the need for community engagement on this issue. Other comments raised by a few respondents implied a need for clarity on the roles of other actors including the Planning Inspectorate, the Welsh Government, insurers, emergency planners and emergency services for sites at risk. Comments were raised by many respondents regarding the various topic based matters for flood risk and coastal erosion and where these tie in with the roles and responsibilities of the various actors involved. Responsibilities for the consideration of surface water flooding was raised by a number of respondents, with a need expressed to clarify the responsibilities of the SuDS Approval Bodies (SABs) in comparison how the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) manage wider flood risk. Some respondents requested clarity on who is responsible for providing specific advice on coastal erosion considerations. A few respondents requested clarity on responsibilities for requesting and preparing both strategic and site specific Flood Consequences Assessments. Resources and the technical skills required by local authorities, LLFAs and for emergency planning was viewed by some respondents as a fundamental concern in delivering on their stated roles and responsibilities. Some respondents viewed the TAN as limiting the roles and responsibilities of local authorities in particular and failing to account for local circumstances in decision making. A number of respondents made comments on the presentational aspects of the TAN in clarifying roles and responsibilities. Comments were made in particular which implied the TAN should be consistent throughout the document in defining roles and responsibilities. A few respondents commented how this could be done within another section or in the form of a diagram or table contained within the document. Other comments were raised on wider considerations of flood risk and coastal erosion

in the planning process that do not directly relate to roles and responsibilities and

therefore are not of relevance to this question.

14


The feedback confirmed the value of outlining key roles and responsibilities, and provided reassurance that the chapter-by-chapter approach set out in the draft TAN was effective. These sections have been revised and updated throughout the document, to reflect changes and to bring more consistency through the document. The published National Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion (2020) provided valuable definitions that have been replicated in the TAN where relevant.

15

Question 3 – Development categories

The development categories (section 6, figure 2) have been revised and updated, with some new development types identified (e.g. renewable energy) and some development types moving into different categories (e.g. public buildings, open space). To what extent do you agree or disagree with the development categories?

Summary Analysis

The majority of respondents to this question were supportive of the development categories outlined in the TAN (57%). All types of respondent in the majority were supportive of the development categories, apart from those from the public sector where there was a split between those who agreed and those who were either neutral in their opinion or disagreed with the categories. Approximately a tenth of respondents (12%) disagreed with the development categories.

Question 3

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

No opinion

Respondent by type

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree

nor Disagree


Don’t know

No opinion





1 5 3 1 0 0 0


Total 3 31 17 7 0 0 2

% 5% 52% 28% 12% 0% 0% 3%

16

Those who were supportive of the development categories generally considered they were logical. However many respondents commented on how the categories could be made clearer in respect of the development types that were listed. In particular, respondents commented on areas including the variances between the different types of renewable energy development (such as hydro which could be listed under ‘water compatible’ category), a need to apply consistency to the terminology used for transport infrastructure, the need to consider the use of public buildings for emergency shelter use and how this would apply to the categories and on the classification of open space as ‘water compatible development’ compared to the distinction made to exclude equipped play areas from this category. Some respondents raised matters of detail in respect of development types including on housing, hotels, waste disposal sites, power generation and mineral sites. Clarity was sought by some respondents on defining developments that are ‘water compatible’ and with regards to how they are considered under the justification and acceptability tests listed elsewhere in the TAN. A number of respondents made comments regarding making the categories more comprehensive, with suggestions for additional development types to be included as part of the development categories. Development types suggested by some respondents for inclusion included water and sewerage treatment facilities, specific infrastructure related development such as green infrastructure and agriculture development. A number of respondents made comments to the effect of considering that more development categories should be included in the TAN. Applying the approach taken in England to using five development categories was mentioned by some respondents, with this being considered to offer the opportunity for consistency and further clarification on the development types listed. Some respondents commented on the supporting text at paragraphs 6.2 to 6.6 and what this meant in terms of applying different developments to the categories listed. In particular, concerns and queries were raised around how to define ‘small’, ‘large’ and mixed use developments within the different categories, with some respondents alluding to a need for a degree of flexibility in this approach. A few respondents disagreed that the entire curtilage of a dwelling, including its garden, should be applied in defining its risk from flooding. Comments were also raised by some respondents requesting clarity on how to apply the categories to development proposals within two or more flood zones and what this would mean in terms of how they are considered under the justification and acceptability tests. Some respondents made wider comments with regards to how the categories of development are to be considered within different flood zones under the national policy requirements outlined in Figure 3. Changes to the table at Figure 3 were suggested in order to provide clarity to this effect.

17


Responses to this question provided useful direct ideas and suggestions that have helped to improve the Development Categories section. Feedback on hydro-electric generation and coastguards stations, for example, has been recognised and reflected in the final TAN. The final list is not exhaustive but covers the most common types of developments and land-uses. The three categories have been retained, as it is considered they provide clarity and a degree of simplicity that helps foster consistent decision making. It has been clarified in the advice that some land uses that are considered water compatible might include areas which should not be left vulnerable to flooding – including changing rooms associated with open spaces, or offices linked to marinas for example. A further change is that the advice for mixed-use developments comprising land uses from more than one vulnerability category has been amended to address concerns about ambiguity.

18

Question 4 – Strategic Flood Consequences Assessments

The revised TAN supports the plan-led system by encouraging planning authorities to build comprehensive consideration of flooding and coastal erosion into Development Plans, using evidence from Strategic Flood Consequences Assessments (section 7). To what extent do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Summary Analysis

The majority of respondents (67%) were supportive of the approach to build consideration of flooding and coastal erosion into Developments Plans, using evidence from Strategic Flood Consequences Assessments (SFCA). All types of respondent in the majority were supportive, apart from businesses and individuals where there was a split between those who agreed and those who were either neutral in their opinion, had no opinion or disagreed with the proposed approach. Approximately a tenth of respondents (11%) disagreed with the proposed approach.

Question 4

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

No opinion

Respondent by type

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree

nor Disagree


Don’t know

No opinion





1 6 0 1 1 0 0


Total 6 34 12 5 2 0 1

% 10% 57% 20% 8% 3% 0% 2%

19

Although the majority of respondents were supportive of the broad approach to build consideration of flooding into development plans using SFCA, most of the respondents commented on the need to give further consideration to how this would be applied in practice. Some respondents commented on the timing implications for the publishing of guidance in the TAN on the undertaking of SFCAs and local authorities being at different stages of development plan preparation, with some having already prepared a SFCA. Some respondents commented on the resource implications for preparing SFCAs. There were suggestions they would place increased requirements on local authorities in terms of the costs and skills required (e.g. by employing consultants to undertake the technical work). A few respondents commented on the roles of emergency planners in engaging with the assessments work, implying a need for clarity on this issue. Other relationships and roles in preparation of the SFCA were queried by a few respondents, including on the roles of developers and NRW in this process. Some respondents considered requirements for SFCAs should be made stronger with an emphasis on these being mandatory for local authorities to complete. There was a number of respondents particularly supportive of the approach to undertaking SFCAs on a catchment-wide basis rather than being constrained by local authority boundaries, but again a need for clarity was requested on how these SFCAs should be applied. In terms of the process for carrying out Assessments in general, many of the respondents commented on the need for further guidance, to provide clarity and ensure consistency in the approach to their preparation across Wales. A number of respondents queried the level of detail that is to be included as part of an Assessment, including on their scope and objectives. The issue of what this would mean for further assessments at the planning application stages and a need to avoid a duplication of work was commented on by some respondents. Some respondents considered the TAN to be too prescriptive in terms of its policies, leading the Assessment to be of little use in informing development plans in policies and allocating sites that would reflect local circumstances and account for flexibility. In this regard, a few respondents commented on a need for further guidance in balancing Placemaking objectives with objectives for flood risk management. Some respondents raised other issues where further clarity could be applied on the Assessments including on drainage, the use of nature-based / natural solutions, their application in coastal areas, the consideration of reservoirs, the obtaining of information on groundwater flooding, their role in providing community betterment and on community engagement. The specifics of the policy wording contained in the draft TAN around the process of undertaking Assessments was commented on by a number of respondents. This included queries on what is meant by a “broad level assessment” and wording around site selection in flood risk areas in particular with regards to employment objectives and determining local considerations. A few respondents queried wording on applying a 100 year lifetime for dwellings, when for non-residential uses the lifetime is accepted as 75 years. A few respondents commented on the need to confirm that sites in conflict with Shoreline Management Plans must not be allocated. Some respondents made comments with regards to issues of wider relevance than

purely the process for preparing Assessments. This included comments in respect of

implementation of the National Development Framework and potential delays in

20

providing infrastructure for undefended areas if there is a requirement to identify those

sites as part of the development plan (as covered under Section 10 of the draft TAN).


Emphasising the importance of strategic flood consequences assessments at the plan-making stage was one of the key objectives of updating TAN 15. The depth of analysis provided by SFCAs historically has been inconsistent, and the feedback indicates that many feel that a lack of guidance in this area has contributed to that. A key failure in the poorer SFCAs has been the lack of alignment between its findings and the strategic choices made in the development plan. Our vision is that SFCAs should contribute to the shaping of strategic spatial objectives in development plans. The revised TAN provides the framework for this, but there will also be a need for planning authorities to share good practice and experiences among each other. The roles and responsibilities section highlights the role of NRW in supporting planning authorities’ work on SFCAs. It is important that NRW are involved at the outset of the process, and they will be best placed to advise authorities on making the most of the iterative approach to a SFCA. The responses relating to resources reflect wider concerns about the plan-led system. As with all examples of front-loading, the investment in comprehensive SFCAs at the outset should be recognised as an important way to reduce uncertainty and disputes at later stages of the planning process. The opportunity to undertake joint SFCAs with nearby authorities should also be seen as a way to ensure efficient use of planning authorities’ resources. An important addition to the advice on SFCAs is that they must consider how flood risk to existing communities and developments might be reduced and managed better. A number of consultation responses made the important point that the scope of SFCAs should extend beyond solely considering where new development can be located safely. The section also includes more detail on when development might be justified in flood risk areas. This creates a more coherent link between the SFCA and the justification test (section 10), which highlights the importance of schemes being identified in and aligned with the objectives of adopted development plans

21

Question 5 – Major regeneration proposals

Section 7.16 proposes new guidance in relation to major regeneration of communities located in areas at risk. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Summary Analysis

There was a mixed response to the proposed new guidance on major regeneration of communities located in areas at risk. Whilst just over a third of respondents were supportive of the approach (37%), just under a third of respondents disagreed with the approach (32%), whilst a quarter had no opinion (25%). This mix of responses generally also applied if classifying respondents by type, although businesses were more in disagreement whilst public sector respondents were in the majority supportive of the guidance.

Question 5

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

No opinion

Respondent by type

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree

nor Disagree


Don’t know

No opinion





2 2 2 2 1 0 0


Total 5 17 15 14 5 2 2

% 9% 28% 25% 23% 9% 3% 3%

22

Many of the respondents requested more detail and guidance on the approach being set out. A large number of respondents requested clarity on what could be defined as large scale or major regeneration within flood risk areas. Many respondents also commented and requested clarity on the approach set out for taking decisions on large scale regeneration at the national and regional level. This included queries on the implications for schemes in advance of the National Development Framework and Strategic Development Plans being adopted and why local authorities and Local Development Plans also cannot address this issue. Some respondents had other queries on how the proposed approach would apply, including if small scale regeneration and mixed use development would be allowed within flood risk areas. There were many comments received on the consistency and clarity of the proposed approach to potentially allow regeneration in flood risk areas with the wider approach set out in the draft TAN with regards to developing in areas of flood risk. The general thrust of these comments was that the draft TAN’s methodology for restricting types of development in areas of flood risk (including the proposed Zone 3) could conflict with this draft policy approach and wider local authority and Welsh Government regeneration initiatives, schemes and ambitions. Some respondents commented on the need to account for existing flood defences with the draft TAN’s methodology, in order to not preclude the regeneration of communities where flood risks can be mitigated. Some respondents made comments with regards to the practicalities of the approach to regeneration of communities, including on accounting for insurance issues and enhancing community resilience in order to manage future flood impacts and risks. Various comments were received by some respondents on the approach specified in the policy to maintaining flood defence infrastructure, with suggestions for a need to go further to mitigate risk and ensuring this is not dependent on regeneration. A few comments were received in respect of the TAN providing information on funding and mechanisms to ensure communities can be adequately protected from flood risks and regenerated. A number of respondents made comments on the financial implications of regeneration, with some disagreeing with the assertion in the draft policy wording that there will be significant consequences on public finances when accounting for the wider benefits regeneration can offer to communities. Other comments were received on wider considerations for regeneration by a few respondents, including on the need to account for green infrastructure and the consideration of greenfield development as an alternative.


The mixed feedback to this question showed that more thought needed to be given to this area of the document. The principle of supporting greater resilience in existing built up areas at risk of flooding is important and is an ambition we believe needs to be enabled through TAN 15. We recognise that those ambitions need to be made within the context and parameters of national planning policy, rather than as exceptions to the policy.

23

In the time since the TAN 15 consultation the Welsh Government has published Future Wales – the National Plan 2040. This national-scale development plan contains a policy on flooding, which recognises the considerable threats of flooding faced in some parts of the national and regional growth areas. It provides a clear intent to make highly populated areas more resilient to flooding, and as a result to be able to safely and sustainably accommodate new development on brownfield land. The revised section of TAN 15, renamed ‘Urban regeneration and renewal’ recognises the development plan policy while setting a framework that will ensure any development in such areas only takes place in the appropriate order. In relation to national and regional growth areas in coastal locations, the Future Wales policy and TAN 15 guidance should be considerations when shoreline management plans are updated. Similarly the expertise involved in developing those plans will help planning authorities to recognise where and how to improve resilience in the national and regional growth areas.

https://gov.wales/future-wales-national-plan-2040

24

Question 6 – Surface water flooding

The revised TAN gives greater prominence and more guidance on considering surface water flooding in the planning system. It will be for planning authorities, with input from Lead Local Flood Authorities, to determine locally whether local planning policies on surface water flooding are required. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Summary Analysis

There was a mixed response to the proposed new guidance on surface water flood risk in the planning system. Exactly half the respondents were supportive of the approach (50%), with a quarter disagreeing with the approach (25%) and the remainder of respondents offering no conclusive view (25%). This mix of responses generally also applied if classifying respondents by type, although for all sectors more respondents agreed with the approach than disagreed with it.

Question 6

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

No opinion

Respondent by type

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree

nor Disagree


Don’t know

No opinion





0 5 0 4 0 0 0


Total 2 27 12 12 3 2 1

% 4% 46% 20% 20% 5% 3% 2%

25

There were differences in views received on the implementation of local planning policies on surface water flooding. Numerous comments were raised by a number of respondents implying a need for more guidance or detail in the TAN on the incorporation of surface water flood risk as part of Strategic Flood Consequences Assessments and into local planning policies. Some respondents raised concerns on there being a consistent approach by planning authorities to doing this. Some respondents raised concerns regarding the wording used in the draft TAN at Para. 8.2 with regards to this process, and in particular on assessing flooding consequences in “high and medium risk areas”, suggesting a need for clarity so this can be applied appropriately at the local level. Many respondents raised queries regarding the incorporation of surface water and ordinary watercourse flood risk into the Wales Flood Map and, in particular, wished to see view them to make an informed response. Queries were also raise regarding if the Justification Test will apply to those considerations. The roles of the different bodies in applying surface water flood risk at a local policy level was discussed by numerous respondents. Some respondents discussed the role of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) in this process, commenting on a need for greater collaboration between LLFAs and planning authorities and also implying they are given a greater statutory consultation role in the consideration of planning applications. A large respondents commented on and queried the interaction of the proposed approach with the implementation of SuDS standards for surface water flooding on new developments and the role of the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). Comments were raised suggesting there would be conflict and duplication between the two processes. Some respondents requested clarity in order to distinguish between the roles of the SAB and LLFAs in considering surface water flood risk. Some respondents commented on the issues of resourcing for planning authorities and LLFAs in considering surface water flood risk. Various respondents commented on different factors as considerations in assessing surface water flood risk. The text contained in the draft TAN on ordinary watercourses was commented on by some respondents, with suggestions received on the wording regarding how they are taken into account as part of development proposals. Some respondents commented on the implementation of SuDS and suggested additions or changes to the wording in the TAN to this effect, including to account for green infrastructure and how it should be applied as part of a catchment wide approach. A few respondents implied a need for clarity in the TAN on how small watercourses or localised examples of flooding not necessarily shown on the flood maps and artificial sources of flooding are to be taken into account in considering flood risk. A few respondents further commented on the consideration of flood risk strategy documents such as Flood Risk Management Plans in aiding decision making on surface water risk at a local level. A few respondents implied the need to consider surface water flood risk as part of Flood Consequences Assessments and by the mandating of drainage strategies for planning applications to ensure it is given due consideration for development proposals in all areas. Comments were also received by a few respondents on the use of local evidence and engagement in informing the consideration of surface water flood risk.

26

There were a few comments received implying a need for some changes elsewhere in the TAN to ensure adequate consideration of surface water flood risk and clarity and consistency in approach, including at Figures 1 and 3.


The advice for planning for surface water flood risk has been developed as result of the consultation responses. A core principle of the approach is that risks can be mapped and presented on a national basis, but the understanding of the nature of those risks will be local. Surface water flood risk should be taken into account in local planning policies, on the basis of evidence from a Strategic Flood Consequences Assessment and the views of technical experts including the Lead Local Flood Authorities. The approach provides planning authorities with the flexibility in order to be able to apply the consideration of surface water flood risk appropriately to their areas. The new Flood Map for Planning (FMfP) incorporates surface water and small watercourses flooding. Two flood zones are contained – a zone 3 and zone 2, based on the same thresholds of risk as for flood risk from rivers. Advice is provided to planning authorities that development will affect where surface water will gather and pool, and that appropriate management and mitigation may be proposed via planning applications. Planning authorities must ensure that development is appropriately set back from the areas at risk. It is recognised that greater clarity should be given on the consideration of surface water flood risk in the planning process and its integration with the implementation of SuDS at a local level. There is now more detail on the roles of different bodies including planning authorities, the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) and SuDS Approving Bodies (SAB). Further, in order to align the planning and SAB processes and ensure appropriate consideration of surface water flood risk in development proposals, the TAN has bene amended to provide better signposting on the necessity to consider surface water flood risk at the planning application stage. Detailed discussions with specialists in local government has led to the inclusion of new advice on the production of Drainage Statements, to achieve the greater alignment that is widely recognised as necessary between the two consenting systems. The statements will be necessary for developments that require both planning permission and SuDS approval and where applicants choose not to apply for them concurrently. The statements will ensure that applicants consider surface water flood risk at the planning application stage, thereby reducing the prospect of gaining one, but not both, consents. The updated TAN continues to recommend, however, that SAB and planning consents are sought simultaneously as best practice. In terms of wider considerations regarding SuDS and surface water, the TAN should be read alongside other Welsh Government policy and flood risk strategies. This position has been made clearer in the TAN, for example by making reference to the Statutory National Standards which contains appropriate detail on how SuDS should be designed and constructed.

27

Question 7 – Integrating coastal erosion issues into TAN 15

National planning guidance on coastal erosion is currently set out in Technical Advice Note 14 (1998). It is proposed to cancel TAN 14, with the relevant guidance on coastal erosion updated and integrated into the revised TAN 15 (section 9). To what extent do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Summary Analysis

The majority of respondents to this question (62%) were in agreement with the proposed approach to integrate coastal erosion guidance into the revised TAN 15. Whilst almost a third of respondents offered no conclusive view (31%), less than a tenth of respondents disagreed with the approach (7%). The views of public sector respondents was mixed, with slightly more respondents either disagreeing or offering no conclusive view, rather than agreeing with the approach.

Question 7

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

No opinion

Respondent by type

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree

nor Disagree


Don’t know

No opinion





3 3 1 0 1 0 1


Total 6 31 8 3 1 0 10

% 10% 52% 14% 5% 2% 0% 17%

28

Numerous comments in support of the approach were made including stating that TAN 14 is outdated and that integrated guidance would allow coastal erosion and flood risk issues to be better considered by those such as developers and planners. A large number of respondents made comments implying a need for clarity in the TAN on coastal erosion issues. Some respondents suggested that the TAN needed to be clearer on the consideration of different roles in accounting for coastal erosion, including those of Natural Resources Wales, Lead Local Flood Authorities, Local Planning Authorities, Coastal Groups, Marine Authorities and communities. Some respondents suggested a need for clarity on those wider plans and documents that inform decision making on development in coastal areas, such as Shoreline Management Plans, the National Coastal Erosion Risk Management (NCERM) Map, development plans, Area Statements and the Welsh National Marine Plan. A few respondents suggested a need for coastal erosion and risk issues to be considered at a strategic level, including as part of Strategic Flood Consequences Assessments. A number of respondents commented on the decision making process for coastal development and the need for further information to be provided on those considerations that are to be taken into account. Some respondents requested further information on how existing or proposed coastal defences are to be taken into account when assessing development proposals in areas at risk from coastal erosion. There were also wider comments received implying a need for clarity on issues concerning flood and coastal defences, such as maintenance. Other issues concerning development and coastal erosion were also highlighted in the responses. Some respondents asked for the TAN to provide recognition of how proposals for coastal adaptation are facilitated, whilst a few respondents stated that the TAN should not prejudice the regeneration of coastal communities. Other interlinked issues on coastal erosion were raised, including a number of respondents requesting that the TAN includes information on how the impact of wave action is considered in respect of flood risk. A few respondents still considered there is a need for a separate TAN on coastal

erosion, predominantly due to considering it to be a separate issue with a need for

distinctive, comprehensive guidance.


The positive response to the proposal to integrate the guidance on flooding and coastal erosion is welcomed. Tools such as the shoreline management plans and strategic flood consequences assessment are well-placed to consider coastal flood and erosion issues, so it is logical to combine the two areas in a single TAN 15. The detailed comments have helped to refine the proposed advice in section 9, which includes drawing stronger links between the evidence and conclusions of shoreline management plans and development plans, and highlighting the interlinkages between land use planning and marine planning. An illustrative diagram, based on Figure 1 of TAN 14, has been added to visually present these linkages.

29

The Flood Map for Planning will include information on coastal erosion risk, with TAN 15 advice clear that no new development should be permitted in those areas. Further locally specific policies for coastal areas can be developed and set out in development plans.

30

Question 8 - Justification and acceptability tests

We propose to maintain the existing ‘TAN 15 tests’, with updated guidance on how these tests should be applied to different types of development proposals (sections 10 and 11). To what extent do you agree or disagree with guidance in relation to the justification and acceptability tests?

Summary Analysis

There was a mixed response to the proposed guidance in relation to the justification and acceptability tests. Just under half of all respondents disagreed with the approach (47%), whilst just over a third of respondents agreed with the approach (39%) and just over a tenth of respondents offered no conclusive view (14%). This range of responses applied across all types of respondent, although more public sector and professional bodies / interest groups who responded agreed with the proposed guidance rather than disagreed with it.

Question 8

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

No opinion

Respondent by type

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree

nor Disagree


Don’t know

No opinion





0 3 3 0 2 0 0


Total 1 22 7 13 15 1 0

% 2% 37% 12% 22% 25% 0% 2%

31

Those respondents in support of the guidance generally commented that it is clear and that the tests are required. There were a large number of respondents who asked for clarity and / or queried the justification tests listed under Section 10. Comments were raised in particular on the following points:

- The requirement for development in Zone 2 being located in areas benefitting

from flood defence infrastructure, including on the standards of protection in this

Zone;

- Why existing flood defences are not taken into account for Zone 3;

- The placemaking requirement for development in Zone 2 as it is already

covered in Planning Policy Wales;

- Restrictions regarding greenfield development in Zones 2 and 3 with both

comments in support of and objecting to this. In this respect, it was further

queried why previously developed land isn’t taken into account for development

in Zone 3;

- The practical implications for different types of development on the requirement

for including schemes in the development plan and the language used for this

requirement, with regards to consistencies on the terms “allocated” and

“identified” in particular;

- Timing implications around preparation of Strategic Flood Consequences

Assessments and development plans; and

- If some flexibility is or is not allowed regarding the allowing development,

including that defined as highly vulnerable, in zones and areas of flood risk.

In respect of the above and the general approach applied with the justification tests, some respondents considered that it would be too restrictive or rigid with regards to new development in flood risk areas, with further comments suggesting that it would not allow for local flexibility, potentially blighting existing communities and constraining development. The lack of consideration of mitigation in the tests was also raised as an issue by some respondents. The wording around the acceptability tests listed in Section 11 was also commented on and queried. Some respondents requested clarity on how a breach and blockage assessment and local contingency plan would be undertaken. A few respondents requested clarity on the requirement to carry out a Flood Consequences Assessment for each of the different flood zones and on how surface water flood risk would apply in respect of this requirement and to this Section. A number of respondents also requested clarity on Figures 4 to 6 within this Section, with some respondents querying the application of the Flood Hazard Matrix at Figure 6 in particular. Wider comments were received by some respondents in respect of the tests, including on how the Wales Flood Maps and its use of appropriate data would apply to them. Other wider comments that are not of direct relevance to the tests were received, including on wording on compensatory flood storage at Section 12, Figure 7, and on development management issues, with the TAN’s publication and transitory arrangements for extant planning applications queried. Welsh Government Response

32

The consultation responses have prompted a number of changes to sections 10 and

11, which set out the ‘TAN 15 tests’. The full development of the new map (Flood Map

for Planning) was also vital to enable these tests to be refined, and for different

scenarios to be imagined prepared and tested under different scenarios.

Section 10 - justification test

In accordance with Planning Policy Wales, there is recognition in the updated advice

that brownfield or previously developed land represents more sustainable location for

development. This is particularly the case when considering flood risk, as greenfield

land has important properties in terms of flood storage and absorption. Section 10

therefore sets out that development in flood risk areas (zone 3, zone 2, TAN 15

Defended zone) is only justified if it is on brownfield land.

The justification threshold becomes progressively more stringent as the flood risk

increases. The vulnerability categorisation applied to land-uses is another variable

factor that is recognised in the justification tests. The tests seek to reinforce the

primacy of the development plan in decision making, by recognising that schemes

allocated in a plan will have been through rigorous examination. The effect is that

there are close connections between this section and the earlier section on Strategic

Flood Consequences Assessments (section 7)

Section 11 – acceptability of consequences test

This section is applicable to proposals that pass the justification test in section 10, and

should not be applied as a means of justifying schemes that do not conform with the

wider advice of TAN 15. It relates to flood-free levels and tolerable conditions within

developments, in recognition that developments that are justified in flood risk areas

may experience flooding.

The issue of flexibility and discretion in such circumstances was a recurring issue with

the previous TAN 15 and this update has sought to minimise potential and perceived

uncertainties. The flood-free thresholds are stated clearly in relation to each

vulnerability category. They are a minimum requirement for development, consistent

with the thresholds of the map and therefore the advice on what is and is not justified

in flood risk areas. The suggestion that flexibility is required in these thresholds is

rejected; flexibility would introduce uncertainty and potentially weaken the intent of the

policy to prevent inappropriate development in areas of risk.

The tolerable conditions for developments located in areas of risk were proposed in a

simpler form than the previous TAN, with two indicators of the severity of a flood,

rather than four. This will generate clearer conclusions about the appropriateness of

locating development in flood risk areas. The advice recognises that a degree of

discretion is appropriate in these circumstances, which would be a matter for the

planning authority and its advisors to consider.

33

Question 9 – Resilient design and flood defences

The shift towards a risk-based approach is complemented by additional guidance on making communities and properties resilient to flooding (section 13). There is also updated guidance on the considerations when new or improved flood defences are proposed. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Summary Analysis

The majority of respondents to this question (54%) were supportive of the proposed guidance on resilient design and flood defences. All types of respondent were in the majority supportive of the proposals. Approximately a fifth of respondents (19%) disagreed with the proposed approach.

Question 9

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

No opinion

Respondent by type

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree

nor Disagree


Don’t know

No opinion





1 5 2 2 0 0 0


Total 3 31 12 10 1 1 1

% 5% 52% 20% 17% 2% 2% 2%

34

Those respondents who welcomed the guidance provided supportive comments of this approach, including on the building in of resilience and design into development.

A large number of respondents providing comments implied a need for further clarity on how resilient design and the consideration of flood defences are to be taken into account in development proposals. In this regard, some of the respondents commented that the policy proposals as they stand would cause confusion. Some respondents commented on possible limitations to the relevance of this guidance, when taken in combination with what were viewed as prescriptive and restrictive requirements of other sections of the TAN, such as those contained in Section 11.

Resilient design was one of the areas where many respondents requested further clarity and further guidance on how it can be achieved with development in flood risk areas. In particular, some respondent queried how the text at Paragraph 13.4 on higher density, mixed use development should be applied in particular circumstances and its tie in with the wider policy aims of the TAN in order to ensure resilient design from flood risk. Comments were received by some respondents implying a need for further clarity on resilience measures, including in accounting for site-wide resilience measures in preventing flood risk. Some respondents requested a need to refer to the relationship with building control and its role in resilience and design. A few respondents wanted more clarity on property-level resilience measures, distinguishing between different development types.

Other comments were received implying a need for clarity on the wording regarding new or improved flood defences. There were varying comments on this issue in the TAN, implying a need for clarity on how the policy wording is applied in respect of new proposals and existing development within communities. There were also a few comments implying a need for clarity on the wording regarding flood defences and implications for flooding elsewhere, including third party land.

Some respondents requested clarity on certain topic areas in respect of issues regarding resilient design and flood defences, with a few respondents requesting clarity on ensuring consideration of biodiversity, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions in this regard. A few respondents also requested that the proposals are consistent with, and update guidance in, wider national policy guidance contained in Technical Advice Note 12: Design.

Other comments were received on some of the wider diagrams and policy wording on the planning applications process for flood risk development in the TAN which are not of direct relevance to this question.


Minor changes have been made to this section to improve its clarity, which was the main concern raised in the consultation. The main changes relate to scope to use flood defences as a justification for new development. It is a long-standing principle (of the national flood strategy) that new flood defences financed from the public purse are to protect existing homes and businesses, not to enable new development. The advice reiterates this point while recognising that such investments in flood defence infrastructure can lead to pressures to allow new development in the areas that benefit from defences. TAN 15 provides a clear, sequential approach to such circumstances, based on the full completion of works and updates to the Flood Map for Planning prior to any new development being permitted in new TAN 15 Defended Zones.

35

Question 10: Impacts on the Welsh language We would like to know your views on the effects that revisions to TAN 15 would have on the Welsh language, specifically on opportunities for people to use Welsh and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than English.

What effects do you think there would be? How could positive effects be increased, or negative effects be mitigated?

Please also explain how you believe the proposed document could be formulated or changed so as to have positive effects or increased positive effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language, and

no adverse effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language.

Summary Analysis

Question 10 was an open ended question and therefore it was not possible to categorise percentage of respondents who agreed or disagreed with the approach. Many respondents did not provided a written response to this question, but for those that did comment it was generally considered the TAN would provide no effects or adverse effects on the Welsh language. Some respondents did refer to a need to produce bilingual versions of the TAN in both English and Welsh, with a few respondents commenting on how this would assist in ensuring the TAN had no effects on the Welsh language. A few respondents referred to consideration of the Welsh language in wider planning processes which is not of direct relevance to this question concerning implications of the TAN on the Welsh language. Welsh Government Response The consultation responses confirmed our initial position that TAN 15 is unlikely to have any significant impact on the Welsh language, and there are no meaningful ways in which it can make an impact. TAN 15 has been produced in will be published in accordance with the requisite Welsh Language Standards.

36

Question 11: Any further comments We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them: Summary Analysis

Question 11 was an open ended question to address issues not picked up in the previous consultation questions. Therefore, it was not possible to categorise percentage of respondents who agreed or disagreed with the approach. There were a wide range of issues raised under this question, some of which cross over with issues raised under the other consultation questions. The majority of respondents generally asked for clarity in the TAN on those specific issues. Some respondents asked for clearer definitions and use of language, correction of formatting errors and increased referencing to linked information within the document. Common themes picked up by a number of respondents and which alluded to a need for further clarity within the TAN on specific areas were as follows: mapping and the Wales Flood Map; reservoirs (including on the wording implying they are maintained to exceptionally high standards); roles and responsibilities (including on the roles of NRW, Lead Local Flood Authorities and Risk Management Authorities); consultation requirements (including implying a need to emphasise early consultation in the document); surface water drainage and SuDS; resilient design; flood evacuation and access for sites (including issues around maintenance); inclusion of development types as part of the vulnerability categories; information on assessing flooding consequences (including suggestions for increased information on requirements for breach and blockage scenarios); maintenance of development in flood risk areas and responsibilities; a need for consistency with the National Development Framework policies on development aspirations in flood risk areas; consideration of the policy approach and its cross-border implications with England; development plans and responsibilities (including for developers) in accounting for sites and flood risk implications; Flood Consequences Assessments (FCAs) (including corresponding table in document and information on Strategic FCAs); insurance implications for flood risk development; nature-based solutions to flood risk developments; climate change implications for flood risk development and local knowledge and community input into flood risk development. A large number of respondents made comments implying a general need for clarity on the text which sets out the process for determining planning applications in flood risk areas. Comments received included suggesting a need for clarity in the TAN on the following: how local authorities should apply Section 10 of the TAN when a site falls into 2 or more zones; application of change of use proposals including in terms of what is allowed by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987; caravan and camping sites and in particular how reasonable it would be to expect local authorities to apply enforcement action for out-of-date flood warning signs at those sites; developer contributions in respect of infrastructure and maintenance; carrying out of Environmental Impact Assessment; and the process around Call-In and the use of Notification Directions for development proposals in flood risk areas. A number of respondents made negative comments implying that the approach to flood risk development set out in the TAN is not risk-based and there were further

37

comments on the extent to which it will allow for flexibility and regeneration to assist in the development of areas affected by flood risk. Some respondents made comments on the flood zones in this regard, particularly in respect of Zones 2 and 3 and generally implying a need for more clarity and flexibility here. Finally in terms of the TAN’s approach to new development, a few comments were received on how flood defences would be taken into account when determining proposals. A few respondents made comments around the wider implementation of the new TAN, including with regards to resources, training and skills and a need for monitoring. There were also comments received by a few respondents regarding the TAN and linkages to wider documents, such as the National Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion and implying more could have been done to ensure consistency between the consultations on both draft documents.


It is recognised that greater clarity can be provided to the advice on determining planning applications in flood risk areas. Greater detail has therefore been provided on Development Management considerations that were raised during the consultation, including on how to determine applications for sites falling into two or more flood zones and consideration of change of use and conversion proposals. Text on the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 on the potential for changes of use which could result in re-categorisation of a development from a low to high vulnerability use has been removed from the document. Inclusion of this text created ambiguity in the consultation draft and the Welsh Government considers such circumstances would only apply in exceptionally few cases. Regarding enforcement for out-of-date flood warning signs at caravan and camping sites, it is considered this is a reasonable policy direction to ensure those sites are kept safe for the people that occupy them. Recognising the resource issues for local authorities in carrying our enforcement, the guidance has been updated to put the onus on the applicant/site operator to keep signs up-to-date by specifying how this should be made a requirement of the planning permission through condition. The wording on Developer Contributions has also been clarified to confirm that contributions for new developments should only apply in respect of improvements to existing flood defence infrastructure and would not allow provision of new flood defences to enable developments.

Appendix – List of organisations and individuals that submitted representations

Local Authorities Businesses

Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Arcadis Blaenau Gwent County Council Associated British Ports Bridgend County Borough Council Association of British Insurers Caerphilly County Borough Council Clive Onions Ltd Cardiff Council Dwr Cymru/ Welsh Water Ceredigion County Council Flood Re Conwy County Borough Council Hughes Architects Conwy County Borough Council - Environment, Roads & Facilities

JBA Consulting

Denbighshire County Council Kier Living Wales and West Flintshire County Council Lichfields for Bourne Leisure Gwynedd Council Lichfields for Julian Hodge Bank Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council Redrow Homes Monmouthshire County Council Planning RPS for Bovis homes Neath Port Talbot Council Turley for TATA Steel Newport City Council Wallingford Hydro Solutions Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority Weetwood Powys County Council WM Consulting for accessible retail Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council WSP

Torfaen County Borough Council Total - 21 Percentage of total respondents from this category - 27%

Vale of Glamorgan Council – LLFA/SAB Professional Organisations / Interest Groups

Vale of Glamorgan Council - Planning Department

Caersws Concerned Residents Group

Total - 24 Percentage of total respondents from this category - 31%

Canal & River Trust

Public Sector Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

Anonymous Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

Anonymous Design Commission for Wales Anonymous Flood and Coastal Erosion Committee Barry Town Council House Builders Federation CADW Institution of Civil Engineers Caersws Community Council NFU Cymru Janet Finch Saunders AM Planning Aid Wales Natural Resources Wales Rossett Focus Group Newport City Homes Royal Town Planning Institute One Voice Wales Woodland Trust

39

Penarth Town Council Total - 13 Percentage of total respondents from this category - 17%

Public Health Wales Individuals

South Wales Fire and Rescue Service Anonymous Wales & West Housing Anonymous Welsh Local Government Association Cllr Louise Bloom

Eilian Jones



Technical Advice Note 15: Development, flooding and ...

Documents

Transcript of Technical Advice Note 15: Development, flooding and ...