23 Flood risk and water management - summary of responses

Flood risk and water management

Question FW 1

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards flood risk and water management, as set out in FW 1 'Flood risk and water management' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?

70 comments

Theme	Summary
General support	Broad agreement with the suggested policy approach to flood risk and water management.
Support but strengthen policy	Respondents support the suggested policy approach in principle but seek stronger safeguards, clearer refusal mechanisms, and tighter integration of climate risk.
Surface water flooding priority	Surface water is the dominant and growing risk; require local evidence, historic events, and protection of areas that mitigate runoff.
Protect green belt/greenfield & natural flood management (NFM)	Retain and enhance Green Belt/ greenfield, woodlands and wetlands (e.g., Hob Hey Wood) as natural flood management.
Sequential Test – stronger application	Apply rigorously across all sources of flood risk; understand risks prior to allocation and avoid high‑risk areas.
Sequential Test – proportional/flexible	Avoid duplication of national policy; allow proportionate, site‑specific search areas and accept sites with mitigation/betterment.
Sewerage capacity & water quality	Existing wastewater capacity issues and combined sewer overflow (CSO) spills (notably Neston/Parkgate/Dee); protect designated sites and secure upgrades/funding.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) – scope, standards & maintenance	Require Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) for all developments with surface‑level solutions as default; secure long‑term maintenance and multifunctional benefits.
Climate change & future risk	Update evidence (e.g., Strategic Flood Risk Assessment) and map future climate impacts; consider sea‑level rise, storms and drought resilience.
Cross‑boundary & strategic assets	Coordinate with National Highways and neighbouring jurisdictions; protect estuary/levees, flood storage and critical infrastructure.
Evidence base & technical robustness	Complete and publish Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and supporting studies; incorporate sewer/reservoir risk modelling and clear technical wording.
Minority objections / defer to national policy	Prefer deferring to national guidance; question scope for local variation beyond National Planning Policy Framework/ Planning Practice Guidance.

Question FW 2

Should the SuDs element of the suggested policy approach include a requirement for nature-based solutions to maximise multifunctional benefits?

27 comments

Theme	Summary
General support for nature-based Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)	Strong support for requiring nature-based solutions within Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage flood risk and deliver wider benefits.
Nature-based solutions as mandatory / priority	Calls for nature-based Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to be mandatory or clearly prioritised over engineered or underground solutions.
Local flooding evidence and place-specific issues	References to existing surface water flooding and the role of green infrastructure in specific locations such as Willaston and Hooton.
Greenfield loss and increased flood risk	One respondent raises concerns that development on greenfield land will increase flood risk by removing natural absorption areas.
Effectiveness and flexibility of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)	Another respondent supports natural solutions in principle, but emphasis that effectiveness should take priority over form.
Quality of design and lessons from recent developments	One respondent outlines concerns about poorly designed Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in recent developments and missed opportunities for multifunctional green space.
Water management, pollution and wider system impacts	Concerns about understanding of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), links to downstream flooding, pollution control and water reuse.
Alignment with Local Plan vision and national policy	Support for the policy as consistent with Local Plan objectives, sustainability goals and emerging national standards.
Developer / stakeholder technical comments	One respondent supports multifunctional drainage solutions where feasible, with emphasis on safety, feasibility and alignment with updated Planning Practice Guidance.

Question FW 3

Should new areas for flood storage be identified and designated?

25 comments

Theme	Summary
General support for identifying flood storage	Strong support for identifying and designating new flood storage areas as part of the Local Plan approach to flood risk.
Local flooding, roads and drainage maintenance	Evidence of localised flooding on rural roads and low‑lying areas, with emphasis on ditch maintenance and highway drainage.
Flood storage should be prioritised over development	Calls for flood storage and floodplain protection to take precedence over development, particularly in areas with known flooding issues.
Nature‑based and multifunctional flood management	Support for a broad definition of flood storage, including natural flood management, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), wetlands, tree planting and soil management.
Community knowledge and consultation	Emphasis on consulting local communities who experience flooding to help identify appropriate flood storage locations.
Strategic flood assets and critical infrastructure	One respondent raises concerns about protecting existing strategic flood storage areas and critical infrastructure, particularly around Stanlow and the River Gowy catchment.
Evidence‑led approach and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) alignment	Support for flood storage designations to be informed by updated Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) evidence and developed in liaison with the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority.
Qualified or conditional support	Support for flood storage in principle, subject to conditions such as avoiding large engineered structures and ensuring fairness to communities.

Question FW 4

How should the new Local Plan address any potential future impacts on water quality, supply or waste water infrastructure?

31 comments

Theme	Summary
Water supply and wastewater capacity must be addressed before development	Strong consensus that new development should not proceed unless water supply, sewerage and wastewater treatment capacity is proven and delivered in advance.
Requirement for water company engagement and confirmation	Calls for mandatory consultation with United Utilities and other bodies on all planning applications and allocations to confirm capacity and asset constraints.
Sewerage capacity, flooding and pollution hotspots	Concerns about existing sewer capacity, flooding and pollution incidents, particularly in Willaston, Hooton, Neston and Parkgate.
Water neutrality and efficiency standards	Support for water‑neutral development, high water efficiency standards, greywater recycling and rainwater reuse.
Surface water management and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) priority	Strong emphasis on managing surface water sustainably, avoiding discharge to combined sewers and requiring multifunctional Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
Infrastructure delivery timing and developer funding	Infrastructure upgrades should be delivered and funded upfront by development, not deferred 10–20 years after occupation.
Water quality protection and environmental standards	Policy should prevent deterioration in water quality, protect rivers and estuaries, and align with the Water Framework Directive and Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS).
Strategic planning and cumulative impacts	Need to assess cumulative impacts of multiple developments on water infrastructure and quality, not just site‑by‑site effects.
Drought, climate change and water resources	One respondent raises concerns about long‑term water availability, drought risk and lack of new reservoirs in the context of climate change and growth.
Groundwater protection and source protection zones	Another respondent supports protecting groundwater source protection zones and avoiding allocations in the most sensitive areas unless fully mitigated.
Water and wastewater asset protection	Development should avoid building over or near water and sewer assets and respect access, safety and future expansion needs.
Support for the policy / expert‑led approach	General agreement that water issues are essential and should be addressed through expert‑led strategy and policy.
Restrictions on hard surfacing	Calls to restrict extensions and hardstanding around homes that reduce natural drainage.

Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.