Policy information sourced from Redbridge Local Plan

LP21: Water and Flooding

The Council will seek to ensure that development does not increase food risk and implements opportunities to reduce the risk of fooding overall.

The Council will minimise the risk to people and property from surface and fuvial fooding by:

  • Safeguarding the functional food plain (Flood Zone 3b) as land where water can fow to or be stored in times of a food from development other than water compatible uses or essential infrastructure;
  • Directing vulnerable land uses away from areas of high food risk. Development on land that is at risk of fooding as identifed in the Council’s SFRA must comply with the Sequential Test and (where appropriate) the Exceptions Test, as set out in the NPPF and accompany Technical Guidance. For the purpose of the sequential and exceptions test, land identifed in the SFRA as being subject to surface water fooding, shall be treated as if in Flood Zone 3a;
  • Requiring a site specifc Flood Risk Assessment to be provided with development on
    • Sites of one hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1 (low probability);
    • All new development (including minor development and changes of use) in Flood Zones 2 (medium probability) and Flood Zone 3 (high probability);
    • Land within Flood Zone 1 which has critical drainage problems (as notifed by the Environment Agency); and
    • Land identifed within the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as being subject to surface water fooding.
  • Requiring food resistant and food resilient measures to be incorporated into the design of new buildings in areas prone to fooding in accordance with the recommendations of the SFRA. Measures used should be informed by a site specifc Flood Risk Assessment, but could include raising foor levels and power sockets, and the provision of safe access and egress points in the event of a food;
  • Utilising Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in line with the drainage hierarchy, to achieve a greenfeld runof rate where feasible. Where possible, SuDS should also be designed to deliver other benefts, such as improved water quality, and enhancing biodiversity;
  • Resisting development involving the paving over of front and rear gardens unless appropriate permeable surfaces and drainage channels are used to minimise surface water run-of;
  • Resisting the further culverting of watercourses and building over culverts. All new developments on sites with existing culverts should seek opportunities to de-culvert these streams to reduce food risk and provide nature conservation benefts. Where deculverting is fnancially viable but impractical, or would be of little environmental value, the Council will seek a fnancial contribution towards other relevant projects for the enhancement or deculverting of other sections of the waterway;
  • Resisting development that poses unacceptable risk to the quality of the water catchment, ground water or surface water. Development adjoining water courses or which contains a watercourse within the site boundary should maintain a minimum 8m wide (riparian) bufer free of development from the top of the bank of the water course and include measures to enhance the environment of the water course wherever possible; and
  • Resisting developments that would compromise the function of food defence infrastructure identifed in the SFRA.

Implementation

The Council will continue to work with the Environment Agency and other relevant bodies to meet the requirements of the Thames River Basin Management Plan and Water Framework Directive, in order to address current and future fooding and water quality issues and minimise risks.

For more information please see the Local Plan