Data currently unavailable

The national flood risk dataset could not be reached for this boundary, so no flood risk conclusion can be drawn. This is not evidence that the site is free of flood risk.

Source: Data currently unavailable

Policy tests

Sources of flooding assessed

Flood risk vulnerability of proposed uses

Mitigation strategy

Sustainable drainage (SuDS) train

Adopt a treatment and attenuation train — permeable surfaces, swales, filter strips, then basins or wetland — restricting discharge to the greenfield runoff rate for the site, with the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event stored on site and exceedance routes designed to safe overland paths.

Betterment where a brownfield or piped baseline exists

Where existing hardstanding or an existing connection discharges at a higher rate, offer a measurable reduction in runoff rate and volume. Betterment is persuasive with both the lead local flood authority and members.

Multifunctional blue-green infrastructure

Design attenuation as usable public open space with biodiversity value so that it contributes to the biodiversity net gain baseline and the green space requirement rather than sterilising developable land.

Maintenance and long-term management

Secure adoption or a management company with a costed maintenance schedule for the lifetime of the development, as the absence of a credible maintenance plan is a routine drainage objection.

Flood and drainage work required

Consultees and residual risk

Environment Agency

Statutory consultee for main river and tidal flood risk, Zone 3 development and floodplain compensation.

Lead local flood authority

Statutory consultee for surface water drainage on major development and consenting authority for works to ordinary watercourses.

Sewerage undertaker

Confirms foul and surface water capacity, discharge rates and points of connection.

Local planning authority drainage or flood officer

Applies the sequential test through plan-making and site allocation.

Internal drainage board (where the site lies within a board district)

Byelaw consent for works affecting board watercourses and its own discharge rate limits.

Residual risk cannot be quantified until flood data is available for the boundary.

This flood risk analysis is desk-based and derived from national open data. It is not a Flood Risk Assessment, does not model flood levels and must not be relied on for design, insurance or investment decisions. Only a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy prepared by a suitably qualified engineer, using Environment Agency modelled data and site survey, can establish suitability.

Policy framework

NPPF paragraph 11 requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, with the tilted balance applying where policies most important for determining the application are out of date.

Position on this site

The adopted plan is Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (adopted 10/10/2019). The plan is approximately 7 years old, so its housing policies are open to challenge on age grounds. The authority reports 4.1 years of housing land supply, below the five-year requirement, which engages the presumption in favour of sustainable development for housing proposals. The most recent Housing Delivery Test result is 86%, which requires an action plan and a buffer. Allocation status is recorded as Not allocated in the adopted plan.

What follows

Confirm the site's status in the current plan and in any HELAA/SHLAA, and align promotion with the next plan-making or Call for Sites window rather than relying on a speculative application alone.

Policy framework

NPPF 2024 retains the five Green Belt purposes and introduces Grey Belt — previously developed or poorly performing Green Belt land which does not strongly contribute to those purposes. Release requires the golden rules on affordable housing, infrastructure and accessible green space to be met.

Position on this site

Green Belt: Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries. Grey Belt position: Possible Grey Belt — limited contribution to Green Belt purposes (indicative)

What follows

No Green Belt work is indicated by the mapped data; confirm against the adopted policies map, which is the definitive source for the boundary.

Policy framework

NPPF requires the sequential and, where necessary, exception tests to be applied, and a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment for sites in Flood Zones 2 and 3, sites over 1 hectare in Zone 1, and sites at risk from other sources of flooding.

Position on this site

Mapped fluvial and tidal flood risk: Data currently unavailable. Surface water, groundwater, sewer and reservoir risk are not covered by the national dataset used here and are recorded as data currently unavailable. As the site exceeds 1 hectare, a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment will be required irrespective of the mapped zone.

What follows

Commission a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy, including a sustainable drainage (SuDS) hierarchy assessment, infiltration testing and confirmation of an acceptable outfall and discharge rate with the lead local flood authority and sewerage undertaker.

Policy framework

Sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings Act and NPPF chapter 16 require special regard to the setting of listed buildings and the character of conservation areas, with substantial harm to designated assets permitted only exceptionally.

Position on this site

Conservation area: Data currently unavailable. Listed buildings: Data currently unavailable. Scheduled monuments: Data currently unavailable. Non-designated assets and buried archaeology are not mapped nationally and are recorded as data currently unavailable.

What follows

Obtain a Heritage Impact Assessment where designated assets or their settings are engaged, and an archaeological desk-based assessment with geophysical survey where the authority's historic environment record indicates potential.

Policy framework

Mandatory biodiversity net gain of at least 10% applies to most planning permissions under the Environment Act 2021, secured for 30 years. Protected species and habitats are addressed under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations and NPPF chapter 15.

Position on this site

SSSI: Data currently unavailable. Ancient woodland: Data currently unavailable. Tree preservation: Data currently unavailable. Protected species, priority habitats, hedgerows and nutrient or recreational impact zones require survey and are recorded as data currently unavailable.

What follows

Commission a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, a statutory biodiversity metric baseline in the appropriate survey season, an arboricultural survey to BS 5837, and confirm whether nutrient neutrality or recreational mitigation applies in this catchment.

Policy framework

NPPF chapters 12 and 15 require development to be sympathetic to local character and to protect valued landscapes, with the highest protection given to National Parks and National Landscapes.

Position on this site

National Landscape / AONB: Data currently unavailable. Local landscape character designations, important views and the authority's design code are not held nationally and are recorded as data currently unavailable.

What follows

Prepare a landscape and visual appraisal with a defensible new boundary, and reflect the local design code or the National Design Guide in any illustrative masterplan.

Policy framework

NPPF paragraph 115 permits refusal only where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network. Safe and suitable access must be achievable for all users.

Position on this site

No national dataset establishes access credibility, visibility splays, frontage ownership or network capacity, so highways is recorded as data currently unavailable in the scoring. Access is the most common practical reason otherwise promotable sites fail.

What follows

Commission a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment with an access feasibility drawing, confirm visibility splays and adoptable geometry, and evidence walking, cycling and public transport accessibility to local services.

Policy framework

Policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, with contributions secured through CIL and section 106. Viability is a plan-level matter but site-specific circumstances can be material.

Position on this site

Education, health, utility and wastewater treatment headroom are authority and undertaker specific and are recorded as data currently unavailable in this report. Where a Green Belt release is pursued, the golden rules add affordable housing and green space requirements which materially affect viability.

What follows

Obtain utility and wastewater capacity enquiries, confirm the authority's CIL rate and section 106 expectations, and prepare a high-level appraisal before committing to a promotion route.

Policy framework

NPPF footnote 62 requires the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land to be weighed, mineral safeguarding areas restrict sterilisation of resources, and contaminated land must be made safe for its proposed use.

Position on this site

Agricultural land classification, mineral safeguarding and contamination history are not returned by the datasets used in this assessment and are recorded as data currently unavailable.

What follows

Commission an agricultural land classification survey where greenfield land is proposed, check the minerals and waste plan safeguarding maps, and obtain a Phase 1 desk study for ground conditions and contamination.