Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - Hambleton District Council

HAMBLETON DISTRICT COUNCIL
DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE - ENGINEERING
STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK
ASSESSMENT
STAGE 1
January 2006

CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION Pages 3-14
• SUMMARY OF FLOODING ISSUES Page 16
• STOKESLEY AREA - DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
• Stokesley Page 18-19
• Great Ayton Page 19
• Great Broughton Page 20
• Hutton Rudby & Rudby Page 20
• NORTHALLERTON AREA - DISCUSSION
• Northallerton Page 21-22
• Brompton Page 21-22
• Romanby Page 21-22
• East Cowton Page 22-23
• Morton-on-Swale Page 23
• BEDALE AREA - DISCUSSION
• Bedale Page 24
• Aiskew Page 24
• Crakehall Page 24-25
• Leeming Bar & Leeming Page 25
• Snape Page 25-26
• West Tanfield Page 26
• THIRSK AREA - DISCUSSION
• Thirsk Page 27
• Sowerby Page 27
• Carlton Miniott Page 27-28
• Dalton Page 28
• Topcliffe Page 29
• EASINGWOLD AREA - DISCUSSION
• Easingwold Page 30
• Brafferton and Helperby Page 30
• Huby Page 31
• Husthwaite Page 31
• Linton-on-Ouse Page 31-32
• Shipton Page 32
• Stillington Page 32-33
• Tollerton Page 33
1

CONTENTS – continued:-
• PLANS – General Key Page 34
• STOKESLEY AREA - PLANS
• Stokesley Page 36-37
• Great Ayton Page 38-40
• Great Broughton Page 41
• Hutton Rudby & Rudby Page 42
• NORTHALLERTON AREA - PLANS
• Northallerton Page 43-45
• Romanby Page 46-48
• Brompton Page 49-50
• East Cowton Page 51
• Morton-on-Swale Page 52
• BEDALE AREA - PLANS
• Bedale Page 53
• Aiskew Page 54
• Crakehall Page 55
• Leeming Bar & Leeming Page 56-57
• Snape Page 58
• West Tanfield Page 59
• THIRSK AREA - PLANS
• Thirsk Page 60-62
• Sowerby Page 63-64
• Carlton Miniott Page 65
• Dalton Page 66-68
• Topcliffe Page 69-70
• EASINGWOLD AREA - PLANS
• Easingwold Page 71-72
• Brafferton and Helperby Page 73
• Huby Page 74
• Husthwaite Page 75
• Linton-on-Ouse Page 76-77
• Shipton Page 78-79
• Stillington Page 80
• Tollerton Page 81
• ANNEX A – SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Page 82
• ANNEX B – STRATEGIC FLOOD ZONE PLANS Page 86
• Stokesley area
• Northallerton area
• Bedale area
• Thirsk area
• Easingwold area
2

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Hambleton District Council Engineering Section was commissioned in July
2004 to undertaking a Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment study as part of the
preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF will replace
the current District Wide Local Plan and will set out policies and proposals for
the development of the District to 2021.
1.2 This Stage 1 assessment identifies:-
• Areas which could be developable subject to the sequential
characterisation of flood risk and the provision of an appropriate Flood
Risk Assessment where required (i.e. those areas in Flood Zones 1, 2 &
3).
• Areas where potential additional flood risks have been identified. These
areas could be developable subject to the provision of an appropriate
Flood Risk Assessment.
1.3 Detailed assessments of individual sites are to be undertaken where
necessary under a Stage 2 process outside the remit of this report once
‘Preferred Option’ allocation proposals have been developed.
1.4 All of the maps and plans in this report are based from the Environment
Agency September 2005 Flood Zone map. The Agency has a continuous
programme of reviewing its assessments of flood risk. This may lead to
adjustments to those areas defined as at risk, and updated Flood Zone maps
are regularly issues. This document should therefore be cross referenced
with the latest Flood Zone maps, which can be viewed on the Environment
Agency’s website – www.environment-agency.gov.uk.
1.5 The data on the Flood Zone map illustrates Flood Zones as defined by the
Government’s Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 on “Development and Flood
Risk” for England (PPG25) dated July 2001. These Flood Zones illustrate the
probability of flooding across England for planning.
1.6 Three levels of risk are identified:-
Zone 3 - High Risk This is the Agency’s best estimate of the area of land at
risk in a flood with a 1% (1 in 100) chance or greater of occurring in any in
any year from rivers and 0.5% (1 in 200) chance or greater from the sea.
Zone 2 – Low to Medium Risk This is the Agency’s best estimate of the area
of land at risk in a flood with between a 0.1% (1 in 1000) chance or greater
and a 1% (1 in 100) chance of occurring in any one year from rivers. And
between 0.1% (1 in 1000) or greater and 0.5% (1 in 200) chance of occurring
in any one year from the sea.
Zone 1 – Little or No Risk The remaining land is the Agency’s best estimate
of the area of land at risk in a flood with a 0.1% (1 in 1000) chance or less of
occurring in any one year from river, tidal or sea.
3

1.8 The absence of Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas does guarantee that there is little
or no risk of flooding. Small watercourse catchments i.e. less than 3sqkm may
not be accurately mapped for flooding purposes due to current survey
technology. So it should be noted that locations next to rivers and streams
may be at some risk of flooding even where the Environment Agency’s Flood
Zone map indicates that they are in Flood Zone 1. It is also possible that
locations remote from watercourses may also be at risk from flooding e.g.
during intense rainfall events.
1.9 The plans in this report also include information on the recorded sandbag
allocations by Hambleton District Council during the period from
October/November 2000 to present. This information is not fully
comprehensive as it may not include the full list of bags collected by the
public direct from the depot and bulk allocations. It should also be noted that
the allocation of sandbags to a property does not necessarily mean that
flooding actually occurred at the property or indicate the type of the flooding if
it did occur.
1.10 The main bulk of the records are based on allocations during the following
heavy rain events: -
• October / November 2000
• 31 July 2002
• 10 August 2003
• 18-19 April 2004
• 23 June 2004
1.11 Also marked on the plans are areas, generally located within Flood Zone 1,
where potential additional flood risks have been identified. These may be due
to high-water table, land drainage issues, highway or sewerage infrastructure
or overland flows.
1.12 The supplemental flood risk information is based on Hambleton District
Council’s in-house knowledge of problems that may cause an increased flood
risk.
2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Roles and responsibilities in relation to development and flood risk lie with a
range of bodies. To summarise:
2.2 The Owner – Landowners have the primary responsibility for safeguarding
their land and other property against natural hazards such as flooding.
Individual property users and owners are also responsible for managing the
drainage of their land in such a way as to prevent, as far as is reasonably
practicable, adverse impacts on neighbouring land.
2.3 The Developer – potential developers must demonstrate that their proposals
are consistent with national and local policies on flooding, assess whether the
proposed development would be affected by flooding or whether it would
increase flood risk elsewhere, and demonstrate that any flood risks arising
from the development would be properly managed.
4

2.4 The Government – There is no general statutory responsibility on the
Government to protect land or property against flooding. The Government
does however recognise the need for action to safeguard the wider social and
economic wellbeing of the country, including adapting to the impacts of
climate change. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
provide national strategic guidance and specialist advice on flooding. They
fund most of the Environment Agency’s activities in this area and provide
grant aid for flood management schemes to the Environment Agency, Internal
Drainage Boards and Local Authorities.
2.5 The Local Planning Authority – must consult the Environment Agency when
considering planning applications which may have an impact on flood risk. In
preparing their Local Development Frameworks they should ensure that land
allocations, development control policies and sustainability appraisals are
informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
2.6 Operating Authorities – which include the Environment Agency, Local
Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards – have permissive powers to carry
out or maintain land drainage or flood defence works in the public interest.
2.7 Highway Authorities – The Highways Agency is responsible for managing
road drainage from trunk roads. Local Authority highways i.e. North Yorkshire
County Council have responsibility for managing drainage from roads on their
road network, in so far as ensuring that drains which are their responsibility
are maintained.
2.8 Sewerage Undertakers – Sewerage Undertakers are responsible for the
public foul and surface water sewerage infrastructure.
2.9 Further details on roles and responsibilities in relation to development and
flood risk are set out in PPG25.
3.0 THE STRATEGIC APPROACH TO MANAGING FLOOD RISK
3.1 Flooding from rivers and coastal waters is a natural process that plays an
important role in shaping the natural environment. The damage that results to
people and property is a consequence of previous human decisions about the
location and nature of settlement and land use. Such damage cannot be
prevented entirely, although its effects can be reduced.
3.2 Flooding can cause substantial damage to property and threaten human life.
The Easter floods of 1998 caused 5 deaths, £400M damage and resulted in
1500 people being evacuated from their homes. The more recent floods of
autumn 2000 flooded approximately 10,000 properties and businesses in 700
locations and 11,000 families were evacuated. The damage estimates for the
flood event and associated wind storms are £700M 1 .
3.3 It is estimated that five million properties are now at risk from flooding in
England and Wales. Two million homes have been built in the natural flood
plain of rivers or the coast and are vulnerable to flooding. The value of
property, land and assets at risk from flooding in England and Wales is £214
billion. Scientists predict that climate change may lead to more frequent
flooding in the future.
1 Figures relate to England and Wales.
5

3.4 It is recognised that it is unsustainable to continue to build flood defences to
protect development from flooding. And by developing in inappropriate
locations with or without flood protection the number of properties subject to
flood risk will increase.
3.5 The Environment Agency has developed a strategic approach towards
managing flood risk. This has five main strands:
• Catchment/land management
• Utilisation of natural washlands
• Managing development through planning
• Flood forecasting, Emergency response and self-help
• Traditional flood defences
Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk 2
3.6 Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 sets out Government policy on planning for
flood risk. It explains how flood risk should be considered at all stages of the
planning and development process in order to reduce risk to people and the
built and natural environment.
3.7 PPG25 makes it clear that the planning system should ensure that new
development is safe and not exposed unnecessarily to flooding by
considering flood risk on a catchment wide basis and, where necessary
across administrative boundaries. Flood risk should be reduced where
possible and certainly not increased. Flood plains should be used for their
natural purposes, enabled to continue to function effectively, and be protected
from inappropriate development.
3.8 PPG25 particularly advises Local Authorities to apply a precautionary
principle to the issue of flood risk, using a risk based sequential test approach
to avoid risk where possible and manage it elsewhere.
3.9 The guidance also states that:
• the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material planning consideration;
• the Environment Agency has the lead role in providing advice on flood
issues, at a strategic level and in relation to planning applications;
• policies in development plans should outline the consideration which will
be given to flood issues, recognising uncertainties that are inherent in the
prediction of flooding and that flood risk is expected to increase as a
result of climate change;
• planning authorities should recognise the importance of functional flood
plains, where water flows or is held at times of flood, and avoid
inappropriate development on undeveloped and undefended flood plains;
2 At the time of going to print consultation was underway on Planning Policy Statement 25:
Development and Flood Risk. This, when final, will replace PPG25.
6

• developers should fund the provision and maintenance of flood defences
that are required because of the development; and
• planning policies and decisions should recognise that the consideration of
flood risk and its management needs to be applied on a whole-catchment
basis and not be restricted to flood plains.
3.10 Reducing the vulnerability of the country to the dangers and damage caused
by unmanaged flood contributes to the achievement of a better quality of life
and the objectives of sustainable development. Local planning authorities
should, therefore, address the problems which flooding can cause by:
• recognising that the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material planning
consideration;
• giving appropriate weight to information on flood-risk and how it might be
affected by climate change in preparing development plans and
considering individual proposals for development;
• consulting the Environment Agency which has the lead role in providing
advice on flood issues at a strategic level and in relation to planning
applications and other relevant organisations;
• applying the ‘precautionary principle’ to decision making so that risk is
avoided where possible and managed elsewhere;
• improving information available to the public about the risks of locating
human activities in areas susceptible to flooding;
• taking into account the responsibility of owners for safeguarding their own
property as far as is reasonably practicable;
• recognising that flood plains 3 and washlands 4 have a natural role as a
form of flood defence as well as providing important wildlife habitats and
adding to landscape value and;
• recognising that engineered flood reduction measures may not always be
the appropriate solution, since they can have economic and
environmental costs and impacts on the natural and built environment,
need maintenance and replacement and cannot eliminate all risk of
flooding
3.11 The guidance set out in PPG25, and in particular the sequential test,
should be applied in determining the allocation of land for future
3 All land adjacent to a watercourse, as defined in the Land Drainage Act 1991, or coast over
which water flows in time of flood or would flood but for the presence of flood defences where
they exist.
4 Area of flood plain where water is stored in time of flood. Such an area may have its
effectiveness enhanced by the provision of structures to control the amount of water stored
and the timing of its release to alleviate peak flood flows downstream.
7

development within Hambleton through the Hambleton Local
Development Framework. Further information on the sequential test is
given later in this report.
Sustainable Development and the Precautionary Principle
3.12 In 1987 the Bruntland commission defined sustainability as “Meeting the
needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs”.
3.13 In terms of flood risk it is recognised that we cannot continue to allow
development within flood plains and in tandem allow the construction of
engineered flood defences to protect that development. We must use a
sustainable approach to flood risk which may involve avoiding additional
development in some areas. Where this is not possible, developments need
to be of a design and with an appropriate level of protection to ensure that the
risk of damage from flooding is minimised, while not increasing the risk of
flooding elsewhere.
3.14 The threat of flooding needs to be managed in an environmentally sensitive
way. Flooding is part of the natural cycle of events. In extreme circumstances
however and sometimes when human activity has worsened its impact, it can
lead to the destruction of ecosystems and habitats, and destroy buildings and
infrastructure on which the economy and society are dependent.
3.15 Potential damage from flooding can be both unpredictable and uncertain, but
can be significant and in some circumstances potentially irreversible.
Because of this we should use the precautionary principle in the planning
system to manage development and flood risk to help achieve the objectives
of sustainable development.
3.16 The precautionary principle states – “where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation”. The application of the principle to the hazard of flooding
acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in flood estimation and, by proceeding
from the known facts and taking a precautionary approach to uncertainties,
enables more open and better-informed decisions to be made.
3.17 While there remain uncertainties, the importance of acting on a precautionary
basis in relation to development and flood risk has increased in recent years
by:
• the growth in knowledge of the likely impacts of climate change and their
effect on flood risk over time;
• more sustainable alternatives to conventional drainage systems, which
can assist in reducing downstream flooding;
• advances in management planning in relation to both river catchments
and coastal cells.
Flood Zone Maps
3.18 As part of the strategic approach to flood risk management the Government
made available the indicative flood plain maps, subsequently with
improvements in technology, information on the maps has been improved and
8

latterly the maps were reissued in April 2004 as Flood Maps with Flood Zones
incorporated for use by local planning authorities. These maps are regularly
updated by the Environment Agency and are published on their website.
3.19 The Flood Map is a tool to raise awareness of flood risk with the public, local
authorities, emergency services and drainage authorities. The Flood Zones
are incorporated within the Flood Map so that Planning Authorities can have
easy access to information to support the implementation of PPG25 and the
sequential test.
3.20 The flood map information is indicative rather than specific and recipients of
the flood map may need to consult the Environment Agency where
appropriate. The Environment Agency will update this data as better
information becomes available e.g. changes in hydrological river response,
observations following flood events or improved modelling techniques.
Risk-based approach and the sequential test
3.21 LPA’s should adopt a risk-based approach to proposals for development in or
affecting flood-risk areas. The assessment of risk should take account of:
• the area liable to flooding;
• the probability of it occurring, both now and over time;
• the extent and standard of existing flood defences and their effectiveness
over time;
• the likely depth of flooding;
• the rates of flow likely to be involved;
• the likelihood of impacts to other areas, properties and habitats;
• the effects of climate change;
• the nature and current expected lifetime of the development proposed and
the extent to which it is designed to deal with flood risk.
3.22 The Government expects local planning authorities to apply a risk-based
approach to the preparation of development plans and their decisions on
development control through a sequential test. Developers seeking sites for
housing and other development should also have regard to this test.
3.23 Accordingly, in drawing up or revising policies in development plans and in
considering applications for development in cases where plans do not yet
reflect the following, local planning authorities should give priority in allocating
or permitting sites for development, in descending order to the Flood Zones
set out below, including sub-divisions in Zone 3. When allocating land in
development plans or deciding applications for development at a particular
location, those responsible for the decision would be expected to demonstrate
that there are no reasonable options available in a lower-risk category,
consistent with other sustainable objectives.
3.24 Locally in all zones, an assessment may be needed of the risk of groundwater
flooding or local flooding due to overland sheet flow or run-off exceeding the
capacity of the drainage systems during prolonged or intense rainfall. Floodresistant
construction may be required in all areas, depending on the results
of that assessment. The run-off implications of development should be
assessed for all zones and controlled, where possible through the use of
sustainable drainage systems (SUDS).
9

The sequential characterisation of flood risk
Flood Zone 1 – Little or no risk
3.25 Annual probability of flooding: River, tidal and coastal

Residential uses should be limited to job-related accommodation (e.g.
caretakers and operational staff). Caravan and camping sites should
generally not be located in these areas. Where, exceptionally, development is
permitted, it should be provided with the appropriate minimum standard of
flood defence and should not impede flood flows or result in a net loss of
flood-plain storage.
3.32 c. Functional flood plains
Notes:
These areas may be suitable for some recreation, sport, amenity and
conservation uses (provide adequate warning and evacuation procedures are
in place). Built development should be wholly exceptional and limited to
essential transport and utilities infrastructure that has to be there. Such
infrastructure should be designed and constructed so as to remain
operational even at times of flood, to result in no net loss of flood-plain
storage, not to impede water flows and not to increase flood risk elsewhere.
There should be a presumption against provision of camping and caravan
sites.
(a) All risks relate to the time at which a land allocation decision is made or an
application submitted. The Environment Agency will publish maps of these
Flood Zones. Flood Zones should be identified from Agency flood data
ignoring the presence of flood defences. Local planning authorities should,
with the Agency, identify those areas currently protected by defences and the
standard of protection provided by those defences.
(b) Development should not be permitted where existing sea or river defences,
properly maintained would not provide an acceptable standard of safety over
the lifetime of the development, as such land would be extremely vulnerable
should a flood defence embankment or sea wall be breached, in particular
because of the speed of flooding in such circumstances.
3.33 Further considerations
Within the sequential test there are exceptions and further considerations.
3.34 1. Insurance considerations
The insurance industry has become increasingly concerned about
environmental risks, including flooding, and the scale of claims to which they
give rise. So the industry is continuing to assess and review its position in
respect of flood risk, particularly in response to the November 2000 flooding
events. Companies are employing increasingly sophisticated techniques to
identify the risk to specific properties, notably ‘Norwich Union’. It follows that
developments subject to flood risk could face increasing difficulties with the
cost and availability of insurance, which in turn could cause problems for
property buyers in obtaining mortgages. Typically insurers are seeking flood
protection against a 1 in 75 year return period flooding event, otherwise there
maybe restrictions in policy coverage or the availability of insurance.
3.35 2. Previously developed land
11

The Government places great emphasis on the need for urban regeneration
and the redevelopment of previously developed land (brown-field land) to
minimise the need for development of green-field land. Much of the past
development took place alongside rivers so some previously developed land
may be vulnerable to flooding. This does preclude development on affected
sites, though in seeking to redevelop such land, then the risk of flooding, the
standards of existing flood defences and the ability to improve them should be
taken into account. Known risks of flooding can be mitigated by confirmed
good levels of flood protection, including protected access, prudent design of
development and effective warning mechanisms.
3.36 3. Flood defences
Government and Environment Agency resources are directed at protecting
existing developments, where this can be achieved at reasonable economic
and environmental cost in relation to the numbers of people at risk and the
value of protected assets. Resources are not available to provide defences in
anticipation of possible future development.
3.37 Plans should not provide for development in undeveloped high-risk areas that
are not currently protected to an appropriate standard, unless that location is
essential for particular development or there are no alternative locations in
lower risk area. However the development should be designed to cope with
the risk of flooding or include effective proposals to protect the land. Flood
defence work must be fully funded including provision for long term
maintenance as part of the development.
3.38 It should be noted that flood defences can only reduce the risk of flooding,
they cannot eliminate it entirely. Flood defences designed to protect against a
certain level of flood event can be overtopped by a flood event of greater
magnitude.
3.39 4. Flood Risk sites
Development sites which are likely to require particular consideration of flood
risk include:
• those within a river flood plain or washland shown on the Flood Map
prepared by the Environment Agency;
• within or adjacent to any watercourse, particularly where there might be
potential for flash flooding;
• adjacent to or including any flood bank or other flood control structure;
• situated in an area where the Agency have indicated that there may be
drainage problems;
• likely to involve the culverting or diverting of any watercourse; or
• of such a size or nature relative to the receiving watercourse/drainage
system that there could be a significant increase in the surface water runoff
from the area.
12

3.40 5. Development behind existing flood defences
For development behind river flood defences, subject to the sequential test
such development should not be permitted where existing flood defences,
properly maintained and in combination with agreed warning and evacuation
arrangements, would not provide an acceptable standard of safety.
4.0 FUTURE LEGISLATION AND STRATEGY
4.1 Two Government initiatives which will shape the how flooding is managed in
the future are now part way through their cycle.
4.2 The ‘Making Space for Water’ consultation document was published in July
2004, setting out the strategy for managing flood and coastal erosion risk over
the medium term, i.e. the 10 to 20 year horizon. The thrust of the strategy is
to develop a risk based approach to manage flood and coastal erosion rooted
in sustainable development principles. Also to develop a holistic approach
involving all stakeholders and ensuring adaptability to climate change
becomes an integral part of all flooding and coastal erosion management
decisions.
4.3 Following a positive response to the strategy consultation document the
Government is now looking at how the strategy can be delivered.
4.4 The second Government initiative is Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25),
this is currently out for consultation and will in due course replace Planning
Policy Guidance 25 (PPG 25). The aim of PPS 25 is to focus on national
policy and to provide clarity on what is required at regional and local levels to
ensure that decisions are made at the most appropriate level and in a timely
fashion to deliver sustainable planning for development and flood risk.
4.5 The PPS draft has been developed to reflect the direction set out in ‘Making
Space for Water’ (Defra 2004) and support the holistic approach to flood and
coastal erosion risk management.
4.6 Consultation on PPS25 closes at the end of February 2006.
5.0 STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Survey work has been undertaken to identify flood risk issues in Hambleton’s
five market towns and a selection of the District’s larger villages in order to
identify any flooding related issues that will need to be taken into account if
land in or adjacent to those settlements is to be allocated for future
development in the new Hambleton Local Development Framework.
5.2 At the time of commissioning the study it was not known which settlements
would require allocations. The inclusion of a settlement in the list below does
not therefore indicate that it will have allocations in the Local Development
Framework. Similarly the absence of a settlement from the list does not
indicate that it will not have allocations.
5.3 Market Towns Covered by the Study
Stokesley
Northallerton with Romanby
13

Bedale with Aiskew
Thirsk with Sowerby
Easingwold
5.4 Villages Covered by the Study
Stokesley area:
Great Ayton
Great Broughton
Hutton Rudby (Incl. Rudby)
Northallerton area:
Brompton
East Cowton
Morton on Swale
Bedale area:
Crakehall
Leeming Bar and Leeming
West Tanfield
Thirsk area:
Carlton Miniott
Dalton
Topcliffe
Easingwold area:
Brafferton
Helperby
Huby
Husthwaite
Linton-on-Ouse
Shipton
Stillington
Shipton
5.5 This document has been produced in consultation with the Environment Agency,
relevant Internal Drainage Boards, Parish and Town Councils representing those
settlements covered in the report, North Yorkshire County Council, Yorkshire
Water Services and Northumbrian Water. Details of the responses are contained
in Annex A.
14

Flood Risk Assessments Stage 1 - Summary Chart
This chart summarises the various known type of flooding conditions and ancillary information indicated within the bounds of each town or village detailed in this report.
Stokesley Area
Northallerton
Area
Bedale
Area
Thirsk
Area
Easingwold Area
Town / Village
100 year
Floodplain
1000 year
Floodplain
Sandbags
Record
Highway
Flooding
High-water
table
Overflow from
piped system
Watercourse /
Culvert
Pending
Alleviation
Stokesley Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Great Ayton Yes Yes Yes Yes
Great Broughton Yes Yes
Rudby Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hutton Rudby Yes Yes
Northallerton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Brompton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Romanby Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
East Cowton Yes Yes
Morton on Swale Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Bedale Yes Yes
Aiskew Yes Yes
Crakehall Yes Yes
Leeming Bar / Leeming Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Snape Yes Yes
West Tanfield Yes Yes Yes Yes
Thirsk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sowerby Yes Yes Yes Yes
Carlton Miniott Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dalton Yes Yes Yes Yes
Topcliffe Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Easingwold Yes Yes Yes
Brafferton & Helperby Yes Yes
Huby No No Yes Yes
Husthwaite Yes Yes
Linton-on-Ouse Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shipton Yes Yes Yes Yes
Stillington Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tollerton Yes Yes Yes Yes
Existing
Defences

DISCUSSION
STOKESLEY AREA
• Stokesley
Background
Stokesley is situated in a generally flat landscape. The River Leven flows through the town
and the River Tame flows past it to the north and west. The two rivers converge to the south
west of the town.
After a series of flooding events in Stokesley during the 1960’s a flood defence channel (FDC)
was installed in 1978, such that high flows in the river could by-pass the town. The FDC
provides protection against a 1 in 40 year flood event.
Further flooding affected the town and surrounding areas during the wider national flooding
event in November 2000, this was one of the catalysts that led to a reassessment of flood risk
in the upper Leven catchment in which Stokesley is situated. The EA commissioned a
Strategic Review of Flood Risk Management along the upper reaches of the Upper Leven.
The Strategy is seeking to identify flood risk management issues and develop sustainable
options for flood alleviation over a long term period.
The outcome of the study revealed that the existing FDC continues to provide its original
design standard of flood protection to Stokesley, i.e. protection against 1 in 40 year flood
event. This relatively high base level of protection means that the provision of a higher level of
flood defence is not economically justifiable at this time, so from the review it was determined
that a targeted programme of maintenance be developed to sustain the present standard of
flood protection to Stokesley and that the flood risk management strategy be subject to
periodic review.
The introduction of Flood Zones by the Environment Agency in July 2004 in accordance with
PPG25 coincided with new flood mapping technology and a significant reduction in the
extents of Flood Zone 3 (1 in 100 year flooding).
Flooding
The major influences on the extents of Flood Zones 2 and 3 and the flooding events in
Stokesley are the Leven and Tame rivers.
The reduction in the extents of the Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas mentioned above has
particularly affected land to the north and west of the town, though there are still areas of
Flood Zones 2 & 3 in that area in association with the River Tame. A further area to the north
of the town, along the B1365, has been identified as having land drainage issues as it is
subject to surface water ponding during storm events.
The other area of potential concern is the greenfield land on the north western side of the
town between the existing development and the Flood Zone 2 and 3 extents associated with
the River Tame. During the course of previous development areas with high water table have
been identified. This does not preclude development, though further investigation should be
undertaken to determine the extent and nature of the high water table and whether it will
effect potential development.
Flood Zones 2 and 3 still extend over much of the land to the south and east of the town,
including existing residential areas. This potentially places a significant restriction on
development.
18

Most of the industry in Stokesley is located on the industrial park to the south-east of the
town. The Flood Defence Channel (FDC) that passes the northern side of the industrial park
provides a natural barrier to development in that area. The land immediately to the south,
south west and south east of the industrial park is unaffected by flooding.
There are areas of brownfield land within the town that may be available for redevelopment
following the relocation of some companies to the industrial estate. An extensive area of the
town centre is within the Flood Zone 2 and 3 area so there will have to be careful
consideration of Brownfield development sites that fall in these areas to ensure that the
development is appropriate and flood risk is dealt with.
The Flood Defence Channel (FDC) was originally designed to provide flood protection to a 1
in 40 year flood event standard. The recent Environment Agency review of flood risk in the
Upper Leven area indicates that this level of protection has been maintained. PPG 25
recognises that development behind existing defences is extremely vulnerable in the event of
overtopping or breaching of the defences. Subject to the sequential test development should
not be permitted behind flood defences that will not provide an acceptable standard of safety.
See plans on pages 36-37
• Great Ayton
Background
The main influence on flooding in and around Great Ayton is the River Leven which flows
through the centre of the village. The contoured landscape means that the Flood Zone
extents are concentrated close to the watercourse.
Great Ayton has a long history of flooding, and as a result the gradient of the river has been
altered through the construction of a series of fords and weirs and the river banks have been
reinforced. Great Ayton was subject to flooding in November 2000 and as a consequence
was included in the Upper Leven Flood Risk Management Strategy.
Flooding
The Flood Zone 2 and 3 extents are concentrated around the River Leven. Two further areas
of flooding are identified in residential areas remote from the Flood Zones 2 and 3 – in the
Angrove Close and Farm Garth areas. The flooding in these two locations is thought to be
principally related to insufficient capacity or defects in the drainage infrastructure, though a
contributory effect from overland flows from adjacent agricultural land has been noted in
relation to the flooding at Angrove Close.
The Upper Leven Flood Risk Management Strategy identified that restrictions on the Leven
as it flows through the centre of Great Ayton were the main contributory factors to flooding
events, in particular the Holly Garth Bridge. However the assessment of possible flood
management options including the alteration of the Holly Garth Bridge indicated it was not
economically justifiable at this time to carry out major works to alter or remove the restrictions,
though this will remain subject to periodic re-evaluation. A targeted programme of
maintenance will be developed to reduce flood risk on an incremental basis and to remove or
lessen the influence of restrictions as opportunities arise.
See plans on pages 38-40
19

• Great Broughton
Background
Great Broughton is situated just below the steep escarpment to the Cleveland Hills. The
contours of the village slope gently from south to north. The Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas are
concentrated along the Broughton/Holmes Beck which runs generally parallel and to the west
of with the Main Street.
Flooding
The extents of the Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas associated with Broughton/Holmes Beck are
generally restricted to the localised low ground around the watercourse.
No additional areas of flood risk have been identified in Great Broughton.
See plan page 41
• Hutton Rudby and Rudby
Background
Hutton Rudby and Rudby are situated on a contoured landscape with the River Leven flowing
in a steep sided valley between the two communities. The extents of the Flood Zones 2 and 3
are within the valley where there is little or no developable land.
Hutton Rudby and Rudby are not in the area being investigated by the Upper Leven Flood
Risk Management Strategy.
Flooding - Rudby
An additional area subject to flooding has been identified on the eastern edge of the existing
development on Stokesley Road, Rudby. A combination of drainage infrastructure capacity
problems in this area and overland flows from adjacent agricultural land, can lead to flooding
of the agricultural land and nearby residential properties. It should be ensured that any
development taking place in the Rudby area does not contribute to existing problems in this
area.
Flooding – Hutton Rudby
The natural contoured landscape means that there is a general absence of additional flood
risk to greenfield land and existing developed areas in and around Hutton Rudby.
There is however a small watercourse called Hundale Gill flowing along the north western
edge of the village. This should be protected from receiving excess run-off or discharges from
any new development as increased flows in the watercourse could have a detrimental affect
on existing development adjacent to the watercourse.
See plan on page 42
20

NORTHALLERTON AREA
• Northallerton, Brompton & Romanby
Background
The central area of Northallerton is situated on generally flat ground, with the eastern side
built on rising ground and lower ground situated towards the south west.
The town is located on the confluence of the Willow Beck, Sun Beck and Turker Beck. These
watercourses and their associated Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas are the main influences on
flooding within the town and impose the main restrictions on development.
Northallerton along with the neighbouring village Brompton and to a lesser degree Romanby
has been subject to significant flooding on four occasions since 1979 and records indicate
that major flooding events have occurred prior to this date, though there is a lack of reliable
information relating to these earlier flood events. Flooding has been fluvial i.e. related to
watercourses, and in combination with drainage and sewerage infrastructure inadequacies.
A severe flooding event in November 2000 affecting Brompton, Northallerton and Romanby
again highlighted the level of flood risk in the community and prompted the establishment of a
multi-agency Flooding Forum to investigate and implement a scheme to alleviate flooding
within the community. The Forum includes representatives from Hambleton District Council,
North Yorkshire County Council, Yorkshire Water, Environment Agency, Northumbrian Water,
Internal Drainage Boards, as well as Parish and Town Councils.
With assistance from the Flood Forum North Yorkshire County Council and its consultants
Mouchel Parkman have developed a flood alleviation scheme (FAS) to provide 1 in 100 year
flood event standard protection for Brompton, Northallerton and Romanby. The proposed
works are being phased. Stage one works, which were essentially small scale interim
measures which could be carried out quickly to provide an immediate reduction in flooding
risk, have now been completed.
Planning permission has now been granted for the stage two works, which it is anticipated will
commence in spring 2006. These major works comprise five rural and one urban surface
water storage areas that will control watercourse flow rates through the urban area and will inturn
provide the 1 in 100 year flood event protection to Brompton, Northallerton and
Romanby.
Following on from the formation of the Hambleton Flood Forum and following a process of
public consultation and study of its sewerage infrastructure, Yorkshire Water Services has
undertaken significant investment to resolve problems associated with the public foul and
surface water sewerage systems. The works are being carried out using an integrated
catchment management approach that encompasses all the known flooding drivers and
concerns.
Flooding
The main influences on flooding are the watercourses flowing through Brompton,
Northallerton and Romanby in combination with drainage and sewerage infrastructure
inadequacies and surface water run-off.
The two principle restrictions on development in Brompton, Northallerton and Romanby are
the Flood Zones and the stage two flood alleviation scheme works. Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas
generally follow the watercourses and are present within certain residential areas and on
greenfield land in and around the three settlements.
One of the main causes of flooding in Brompton, Northallerton and Romanby is that surface
water flows from rural and farm land and urban areas peak together. The proposed FAS
seeks to reduce the peak flow rate through the urban area which will in-turn enable the
21

existing drainage and sewerage infrastructure to cope with the reduced flows and in-turn
reduce the risk of flooding.
In addition to the 2 stage FAS mentioned above a separate investigation has been carried out
by North Yorkshire County Council into the causes of flooding to residential properties in the
St Johns Close area adjacent to College Stell on the southern edge of Romanby.
Improvement work to the flood embankment between the Stell and the residential properties
has been carried out by the River Wiske Internal Drainage Board. The NYCC investigation
indicates that improvements to the main surface water headwall structure on College Stell
adjacent to St John’s Close, in combination with the embankment improvement should
alleviate flooding and reduce flood risk to existing properties in that area.
Most industry in Northallerton is concentrated to the north-west of the town adjacent to the
A167. This area is largely unaffected by flooding, though the existing surface water storage
area located between Northallerton and Brompton is on the edge of the developable area and
on the eastern edge of the existing industrial area.
Drainage and sewerage design on new developments both on green and brownfield site must
take into consideration particularly surface flows and run-off and the possible consequential
flooding risks to existing developed areas.
At this stage until the FAS is actually constructed and the Flood Zone extents remodelled it is
unclear as to the extent of the areas benefiting from defences and whether there will be any
new development opportunities. However it should be stressed that the purpose of publicly
funded flood defences is not to provide new development opportunities, moreover it is to
alleviate flooding, reduce flood risk to existing property and reduce the risk of loss of life.
PPG25 recognises that development behind defences is extremely vulnerable in the event of
any overtopping or breaching of the defences.
See plans on pages 43-50
• East Cowton
Background
The existing development in East Cowton is set-out along the main street, with the older
properties located on the elevated ground to the west and east of the village. Newer
development in the village since the 1950’s, has focused on land to the south of the main
street, initially on the high ground to the west, though latterly to the lower lying ground in the
centre of the village.
The Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas are associated with The Stell, which is a tributary of the River
Wiske to south of the village.
Properties and land in the central low lying area of the village were affected by flooding on
two occasions recently firstly in June 1998 and then in November 2000. The principal cause
of the flooding was inundation of the urban drainage infrastructure by overland surface water
flows from the existing developed areas and the higher land around the developed areas.
Since the flooding event in November 2000, improvements have been carried out by the
Parish Council to land drainage, by North Yorkshire County Council to the highway drainage
and Yorkshire Water Services Limited to the foul sewerage system, all of which were subject
to inundation during the flood events.
Flooding
Although Flood Zones 2 and 3 do not extend into the village an area of flood risk is identified
close to the existing properties in the low-lying central area of the village and extending to
22

greenfield agricultural land to the south which is on the edge of the Flood Zone 2 area. This
area was affected by flooding during the recent flooding events and despite the improvements
made to the local drainage infrastructure, development in this area will continue to be subject
to additional flood risk and there is a likelihood that new development would result in an
increased flood risk elsewhere.
Development on any greenfield land or brownfield sites in and around the village should be
treated with extreme caution as new development could increase the flood risk to the central
and other low-lying areas of the village.
There should be careful consideration of any development proposals including the provision
of flood risk assessments of any sites under consideration, to determine the nature of the
flood risk associated with new development. There may be opportunities for new development
that does not increase flood risk and that can contribute to the reduction of flood risk.
See plans on page 51
• Morton-on-Swale
Background
Morton-on-Swale is situated on locally elevated ground with its neighbouring community of
Ainderby Steeple. The landscape is gently sloping with some undulations, Morton-on-Swale is
on the lower ground to the west adjacent the River Swale with Ainderby Steeple on the higher
ground to the east.
The Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas associated with the River Swale do not extend into the existing
residential areas of Morton or Ainderby.
Flooding
The River Swale and associated Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas to the west of Morton-on-Swale
create a natural restriction to any westward development of the village.
A localised area of flood risk is highlighted in a low spot on the Main Street. This area has
been affected during intense rainfall events when the capacity of the local drainage
infrastructure has been exceeded. There should be caution in developing any sites in this
area to ensure that run-off from the development does not increase the risk of flooding to the
properties in the low lying areas of the village.
See plans on page 52
23

BEDALE AREA
• Bedale
Background
Bedale is situated in a contoured landscape with generally elevated ground to the North West
and the lower ground to the south east. Bedale Beck flows between Bedale and Aiskew.
There are Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas adjacent to the watercourse.
Flooding
The Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas along the Bedale Beck watercourse extend slightly into already
developed areas. The contoured landscape of Bedale means that the existing developed
areas are generally well drained, and no specific areas of additional flood risk have been
identified.. The main risk potentially associated with new development is additional surface
water run-off which could create flood risk to the development itself of increase Flood Zone 2
and 3 area extents.
An area with potential land drainage issues has been identified to the South East of the town.
New development particularly on the lower ground towards the south east along Firby Road,
Exelby Road and near the Iddison Drive/Peirse Close area, should be sympathetic to the
existing land drainage arrangements. If development is considered in these areas individual
flood risk assessments of the sites will be required.
See plan on page 53
• Aiskew
Background
Aiskew is situated on generally elevated ground. The Wensleydale railway loops around the
eastern, southern and western sides of the village on lower ground. The naturally contoured
landscape means the village does not suffer the flooding difficulties associated with flat
landscapes.
The major watercourse in the area is Bedale Beck; this loops around the west of Aiskew from
North to South and then onto the River Swale to the east. Bedale Beck is the receiving
watercourse for surface water run-off from development in Aiskew.
Flooding
The Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas do not extend into developed areas or onto agricultural land in
the vicinity of Aiskew, and no additional areas of flood risk have been identified in or adjacent
to the settlement.
See plan on page 54
• Crakehall
Background
The Crakehall community consists of Little and Great Crakehall, with Bedale Beck flowing in
the valley between the two communities.
24

The residential areas are mainly located on the elevated ground away from Bedale Beck and
are not therefore affected by the Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas which are concentrated on the low
lying areas in the immediate vicinity of the watercourse.
Flooding
The naturally contoured landscape on which the Crakehall community is situated means that
the land and surface water can drain readily to the watercourse, this results in an absence of
significant flood risk affecting the main residential areas. There are no identified areas of
additional flood risk in Crakehall.
See plan on page 55
• Leeming Bar & Leeming
Background
Leeming Bar and Leeming are situated on level ground north and south respectively of the
Bedale Beck which runs in a small valley between the two settlements. The northern part of
Leeming Bar, beyond the railway line, is situated on ground which rises gradually to the north.
The Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas are concentrated along the sides of Bedale Beck. They do not
extend into the existing developed areas of Leeming or Leeming Bar and are not present in
the vicinity of Leeming Bar Industrial Estate,
Flooding - Leeming
The historic flooding issues in Leeming village are associated with the local drainage
infrastructure, particularly during flash storm conditions or prolonged periods of wet weather.
Areas are highlighted showing drainage difficulties. It should be ensured through appropriate
Flood Risk Assessments that new development does not add to the flood risk in these and
other locations.
There are issues associated with the waste water treatment infrastructure; the indicative area
affected is highlighted on the plans. Yorkshire Water Services have stated that the waste
water treatment works serving the Leeming / Leeming Bar / Londonderry area is at capacity
and any development in and around this area will have to be co-coordinated with YWS as
additional treatment capacity will need to be created.
Flooding – Leeming Bar
There are no specific areas of additional flood risk identified in Leeming Bar. There are
however issues associated with the waste water treatment infrastructure; the indicative area
affected is highlighted on the plans. Yorkshire Water Services have stated that the waste
water treatment works serving Leeming / Leeming Bar / Londonderry area is at capacity and
any development in and around this area will have to be co-coordinated with YWS as
additional treatment capacity will need to be created.
See plans on pages 56-57
• Snape
Background
Snape is situated on a gently sloping landscape with the slightly higher ground to the west.
There is a network of un-named watercourses and drainage ditches in and around the village.
25

Flooding
Extensive areas of the village and surrounding land are within the Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas
associated with the network of watercourses and drainage ditches in the vicinity of the village,
including the principal watercourse which runs through the village from east to west. This
includes existing residential properties and parts of the Hares of Snape site.
No areas of additional flood risk have been identified.
See plan on page 58
• West Tanfield
Background
West Tanfield is set on a sloping landscape with the higher ground generally located to the
north. The landscape then slopes down to the lower ground adjacent to the River Ure on the
southern side of the village.
Flood defences are shown on the South side of the River Ure, these provide some protection
to agricultural land on the south of the river but do not impact on flood risk in the village itself.
Flooding
The extents of the Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas on the West Tanfield bank of the River Ure are
minimal, with the main flood plain area located on the opposite southern bank.
No additional areas of flood risk have been identified.
The River Ure provides a natural boundary to the village as well as being the District Council’s
boundary with Harrogate Borough Council.
See plan on page 59
26

THIRSK AREA
• Thirsk & Sowerby
Background
Thirsk and Sowerby are situated on a gently sloping landscape with slightly elevated ground
to the north and lower ground to the south. The area has been subject to significant flooding
on average every 25 years, with smaller scale events in between.
Cod Beck and Whitelass Beck are the main influences on flooding in Thirsk and Sowerby.
The higher risk Flood Zone 3 areas are concentrated alongside these watercourses and
extend into some existing residential areas as well as the town centre. The Flood Zone 2
areas are more extensive and cover large areas of Old Thirsk and the Industrial Park on the
eastern side of the Cod Beck.
Following the November 2000 flooding the Environment Agency carried out a Section 105
study of flooding that affects Thirsk. Following this Hambleton District Council commissioned
a two stage feasibility study to determine whether an economically viable flood alleviation
scheme could be provided for Thirsk. The feasibility study indicated that under the DEFRA
flood management grant aid funding criteria for 2005/06 it should be possible to provide an
economically viable flood alleviation scheme for Thirsk, and proposed a scheme based on a
rural water storage area combined with minimal flood defences alongside the Cod Beck
where it flows through the urban area.
Due to its strategic importance the Environment Agency are planning to enmain the Cod Beck
in April 2006. This will mean it is given main river status and will come under the supervisory
responsibility of the Environment Agency. Once this takes place only the Environment Agency
will be able to carry out flood protection works on the watercourse. Presently whilst the
watercourse retains ordinary watercourse status flood protection works fall to the Local
Authority or the Cod Beck Internal Drainage Board.
Flooding
The Flood Zone 3 areas to the north and south of existing development largely extend over
natural floodplain or washlands. Development of these areas should be avoided. The Flood
Zone 3 area extents also affect both brownfield and greenfield land within the existing
developed areas alongside the Cod Beck,
The Flood Zone 2 areas extend over a wider area of Thirsk and in some instances to
greenfield land adjacent to existing development to both the north and south of the
settlement. .The presence of the Flood Zone 2 areas does not wholly preclude development,
but does place restrictions on development subject to the sequential test set out in PPG25.
Additional areas of flood risk have not been identified.
See plans on pages 60-64
• Carlton Miniott
Background
Carlton Miniott is situated on an almost flat landscape. There are no Flood Zone 2 and 3
areas within the village, though there are a number of small drainage channels and
watercourses that flow from south to north through the village and a number of large ponds
close to residential areas.
27

Flooding
There are no development restrictions imposed by the presence of Flood Zones in the Carlton
Miniott area. The area is however crossed by a number of small drainage channels and
watercourses shown in red on the plan, and a large area between the two areas of Carlton
Miniott is subject to land drainage issues associated with the adjacent watercourse.
There could be increased flood risks and potential land drainage issues associated any new
development that takes place alongside the drainage channels and watercourses. The
increased risks are most likely to manifest themselves during flash flood or prolonged wet
weather conditions.
As Carlton Miniott is situated on a flat landscape then there is potential for localised flooding
problems if surface water drainage channels and culverts are not properly maintained.
See plans on page 65
• Dalton
Background
Dalton village and Dalton Airfield Industrial Estate are situated on a flat landscape. The main
influences on the Flood Zone 2 and 3 extents are the three principal watercourses in the area.
Old Beck flows through the centre of the village, Cod Beck is located to the west of Dalton
and the River Swale is located immediately South of the industrial estate.
The major flooding event in November 2000 caused flooding in around Dalton village and the
industrial estate. In Dalton village the flooding affected low lying properties in the village
centre adjacent to Old Beck. A further principal difficulty affecting both the village and
industrial estate was that the access roads were flooded. At the height of the flood the only
clear access road into the village was via the minor road from Sessay to the east.
The main access road to the industrial park immediately to the east of the A168 slip-road on
Dalton Lane at Dalton Bridges was flooded for a number of days during November 2000 and
flooding has reoccurred during subsequent significant storm events, creating access
difficulties to Dalton village and the industrial estate from the A168.
Flood defences are shown to both sides of the River Swale to the south of the industrial
estate; these provide some protection to agricultural land but do not impact on flood risk to the
industrial estate or the village itself.
Flooding
In Dalton village the Zone 2 and 3 extents are restricted to the low lying areas immediately
adjacent the Old Beck. Due to the access restrictions to the village that occur during
significant flood events careful consideration should be given to whether or not vulnerable
developments as identified in PPG25 should be located in this area (including residential
developments).
The industrial estate can only be accessed by Eldmire Lane. Access to Eldmire Lane is
available from the A168 via Dalton Lane (this is the preferred access route) or through Dalton
village via Dalton Lane. Careful consideration should be given to the type of facilities that are
permitted on the industrial estate as access can be severely restricted during flood and storm
events.
See plans on pages 66-68
28

• Topcliffe
Background
Topcliffe is located on elevated ground between the River Swale and Thacker/Cod Becks,
with the watercourses converging south of the village. The watercourses each have extensive
Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas associated with them. The A168 trunk road runs past the east of
the village.
Flooding
The major influence on flooding in Topcliffe is the River Swale and its associated Flood Zone
2 and 3 areas to the west and south of the village. This limits the developable area in
combination with the A168 which provides a natural boundary on the eastern side of the
village. The majority of existing development, and land to the north and north east of the
village are not within the flood zone 2 and 3 extents.
An area subject to additional flooding problems has been highlighted at the junction of East
Lea, Back Lane and Long Street. This is related to surface water run-off from the adjacent
field and highway drainage inadequacies on the unadopted East Lea. No further areas of
additional flood risk have been identified.
See plans on pages 69-70
29

EASINGWOLD AREA
• Easingwold
Background
Easingwold is situated on a sloping landscape, with the higher ground to the north and east
and the lower ground to the south and west.
Flooding
The main influences on flooding in the vicinity of Easingwold are the network of watercourses
to the south east of the town; though there are no areas of Flood Zones 3 or 2 within the
existing developed area or on the greenfield land immediately adjacent to the town.
No areas of additional flood risk have been identified within the existing developed areas.
The main area of concern in respect of additional flood risk to greenfield land is adjacent to
the south-east corner of the town. This area, close to the Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas south of
the town associated with Longbridge Beck, has a high water table. There are additional areas
with land drainage issues to the south of the town on either side of York Road. If new
development is be considered in these areas then more detailed Flood Risk Assessments will
need to be undertaken to determine the extent and nature of the flood risk and determine
whether it will prevent or limit development. The landscape in this area is relatively flat which
means there is potential for localised flooding problems if surface water drainage channels
and culverts are not properly maintained.
See plans on pages 71-72
• Brafferton and Helperby
Background
The communities of Brafferton and Helperby are located on a undulating landscape, with
higher ground located to the north and south of the developed area. Brafferton to the North is
situated on higher ground and Helperby is situated on higher ground to the south and lower
ground in the village centre. From the western edge of the villages land slopes down towards
the River Swale.
Flooding
The main influence on flooding are the Flood Zone 2 and 3 extents associated with the River
Swale located to the west of the developed area. These extend over greenfield land between
the river and the western edge of the settlement and effectively form a natural limit to
development in that area.
There are no identified areas of additional flood risk in the existing settlement or on greenfield
land to the north east or south. However, the greenfield land on the outskirts of the villages is
generally on the higher ground, so care should be taken to ensure that any new development
in those areas does not increase flood risk to existing development.
See plans on pages 73
30

• Huby
Background
Huby is situated on gently sloping ground. The north side of the village is elevated and slopes
gently towards the lower ground to the south.
An extensive new foul and surface water sewerage system was installed in Huby in the
1980’s and as a consequence there have been few sewerage infrastructure related flooding
problems.
Flooding
There are no Flood Zone 2 or 3 areas in the immediate vicinity of the village and there are no
identified areas of additional flood risk which may affect new development on Brownfield sites
in the existing residential areas.
There are no specific additional flooding issues in the village or on the greenfield land
surrounding it. Huby is however situated on a flat landscape and there is potential for
localised flooding problems if surface water drainage channels and culverts are not properly
maintained.
See plan on page 74
• Husthwaite
Background
Husthwaite is situated on a sloping landscape with the higher part of the village to the east
and the lower part to the west.
Flooding
The Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas are located to the east of the village and are associated with
Ings Beck.
There are no Flood Zone 2 or 3 areas in the immediate vicinity of the village and there are no
identified areas of additional flood risk which would limit new development within the village or
on the greenfield land immediately adjacent to it. Huby is however situated on a flat
landscape and there is potential for localised flooding problems if surface water drainage
channels and culverts are not properly maintained.
See plan on page 75
• Linton-on-Ouse
Background
Linton-on-Ouse is situated on a generally flat landscape; the residential areas are situated
along the Main Street on land which is slightly higher than the River Ouse which flows to the
south of the village. The River Kyle also flows past the village to the east.
Flooding
The main influences on flooding in the Linton area are the Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas
associated with the River Ouse and River Kyle and their respective tributaries, situated to the
south and east of existing residential areas.
31

One area of potential additional flood risk has been identified outside of the Flood Zone 2 and
3 areas; this is on greenfield land adjacent to a small un-named watercourse flowing from
west to east between the main village and the Linton Woods residential area.
A further flood issue relates to access. During past flood events the road from Linton-on-Ouse
to Newton-on-Ouse has become impassable. This is the main access route from the village to
York and alternative routes may also be affected. There should be careful consideration given
to the type of development permitted or encouraged in the village in the future due to the
potential reoccurrence of access restrictions.
The presence of flood defences is noted on the plans. On the basis of the known extents of
past flooding events it is apparent that the existing defences provide only a limited level of
flood defence and do not alter the area’s Flood Zone 2 and 3 extents. Their presence does
not therefore present any additional development opportunities.
The Environment Agency commissioned a Flood Risk Management Strategy for the River
Ouse in late 2004 to determine the best ways of managing flood risk to people, property and
land in the long term. A preferred strategy has now been developed and is out to consultation
until 10 February 2006.
The Environment Agency study indicated that climate change is likely to increase the flood
risk associated with the River Ouse in the Linton area, though should their proposed strategy
be adopted the present moderate level of flood risk can be maintained in the long term. (0-
100 year time frame)
See plans on pages 76-77
• Shipton
Background
Shipton is situated on a generally flat landscape, though the village area itself is slightly
elevated in relation to the surrounding agricultural land.
Flooding
There are no Flood Zone 2 or 3 areas within the village or on the greenfield land immediately
surrounding it.
There are no specific additional flooding risks associated with existing residential areas, the
brownfield site on Main Street occupied by a derelict garage, or the greenfield land adjacent
to the village. Shipton is however situated on a flat landscape and there is potential for
localised flooding problems if surface water drainage channels and culverts are not properly
maintained.
See plans on pages 78-79
• Stillington
Background
The main residential area of Stillington is situated on elevated ground, with lower ground
surrounding the village.
32

Flooding
The main influence on flooding is the River Foss and its associated Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas
on the eastern edge of the village, though these areas do not extend into the main residential
area.
The elevated and sloping nature of the residential area of Stillington means that there is low
flood risk within the majority of the existing residential area, and this extends to the majority of
the Greenfield land in close proximity to the developed areas.
Two areas of potential additional flood risk have been highlighted on the eastern edge of the
village which are in close proximity to the Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas. A more detailed flood
risk study would be needed to look at the nature of this flood risk should development be
considered in this area.
An area of highway flooding is shown on the southern edge of the village which relates to
highway drainage, a scheme is proposed to alleviate the existing flooding, though there may
be an increased flood risk if surface water flows to this area are increased.
See plans on page 80
• Tollerton
Background
Tollerton is situated on a gently sloping landscape with the slightly elevated ground located to
the south east and lower ground towards the North West.
Flooding
Historic flooding problems in the village were linked to poor surface water sewerage
infrastructure in Station Road; however the Station Road surface water sewerage scheme
which was completed approximately 4 years ago has remedied this problem.
The main remaining influence on flooding is the River Kyle and its associated Flood Zone 2
and 3 areas located to the south west of the village.
No areas of additional flood risk in the existing developed areas have been identified.
Three greenfield areas on the northern side of Tollerton have been identified where there are
possible additional flood risks related to land drainage and overland flows. If these areas are
to be considered for development then more detailed flood risk assessments will be required.
See plans on page 81
33

E.A. Flood Zone 2
0.1% annual
flooding probability
General Key to Plans
HDC requested
sandbags Oct 2000
to present.
E.A. Flood Zone 3
1% annual flooding
probability
Watercourses,
ditches and/or
culvert issues
Land drainage
issues
High Water
Table
Waste Water
Treatment
Issues
Highway drainage
issues
Sewerage
infrastructure issues
Potential flood
storage reservoirs
Ponds
Flood Defences
34

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIALLY BLANK
35

Stokesley Town
Areas of potential
high-water table
Land drainage issues
Flood Defences
36

Stokesley Industrial Park
Flood Defences
37

Great Ayton
38

Great Ayton – Highway Issue (North)
39

Great Ayton – Highway Issue (South)
Land drainage
issues
40

Great Broughton
41

Hutton Rudby and Rudby
Rudby
Variety of drainage issues
Hundale Gill watercourse
42

Northallerton
Turker Beck Rural Storage
Area
Sun Beck Rural
Storage Area
College Stell Issues
43

North-east Northallerton
Brompton Road
Highway Flooding
Quaker Lane
Highway Flooding
Turker Beck Rural Storage
Area
Bullamoor
Storage Tank
44

Northallerton, Sun Beck – Rural Storage Area
Sun Beck Flood Rural Storage Area
45

Romanby
College Stell Issues
46

Romanby West
47

Romanby East – College Stell
College Stell
48

Brompton
49

Brompton/Northallerton – North Beck Rural Storage Area
North Beck Rural Storage
Area
50

East Cowton
Highway and Property Flooding
Area at risk from
Overland flows
51

Morton-on-Swale Drainage Issues
Flood Defences
Drainage Infrastructure
Issues
52

Bedale
Land drainage
issues
53

Aiskew
54

Crakehall
55

Leeming Bar and Leeming
Waste water treatment issues
56

Leeming Village – Drainage Issues
Waste water treatment issues
Land drainage issues
Highway drainage issues
57

Snape
58

West Tanfield
Flood Defences
59

Thirsk - North
60

Thirsk - South
61

Thirsk - Central
62

Sowerby
63

Sowerby – Moor Lane Stell
64

Carlton Miniott
Ponds
Watercourse
Land drainage issues
associated with watercourse
65

Dalton
Road access
restrictions during
flood conditions
66

Dalton – A168 Junctions
Road access
restrictions during
flood conditions
67

Dalton – Flood Defences
Flood Defences
68

Topcliffe
69

Topcliffe – Drainage Issues
70

Easingwold
71

Easingwold South
High water table
Land drainage
issues
72

Brafferton-Helperby
73

Huby
Pond – high ground water
table
74

Husthwaite
75

Linton on Ouse
Flood Defences
76

Linton on Ouse (East)
Susceptible area from watercourse
77

Shipton
78

Shipton – Drainage Issues
Watercourses to be
maintained
Land drainage
considerations
79

Stillington
Further Investigation
Required
Local Drainage Infrastructure
Issues
80

Tollerton
Further Investigation
Required
81

ANNEX A
SUMMARY OF CONSULATION RESPONSES
82

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENIONALLY BLANK
83

ANNEX A
SFRA CONSULTATIONS - TRANCHE 1
Consultees Comments Actions
PARISH/TOWN COUNCILS
Ainderby Steeple No flooding issues, PM would like seperation from Morton-on-Swale Ainderby Steeple removed from study as secondary village
Aiskew with Leeming Bar No response No actions required
Bedale Two areas adajcent to Bedale Beck identified Two areas identified are within flood zone 3 already no further action required
Brafferton No response No actions required
Brompton No response No actions required
Carlton Miniott No response No actions required
Crakehall No response No actions required
Dalton No response No actions required
Easingwold
New areas on York Road and Stillington Road, Historic problem at Ninevah
Cottages mentioned
York Road and Stillington Road areas added, Ninevah Cottages problem now
resolved no need mention
East Cowton Comments on flooding issues and meeting with CT Comments taken into account in narrative
Great Ayton No additional information supplied in response No actions required
Great Broughton No response No actions required
Helperby No response No actions required
Huby No response No actions required
Husthwaite No response No actions required
Hutton Rudby Detailed response supplied Amendments made to introductory text and extent of flooding problems in the parish
noted in text and on plans
Leeming No response No actions required
Linton-on-Ouse
Concern raised over the vunerability of the Waste Water Treatment Works YWS to be advised regards WWTW concerns. Access road comments to be added.
and flooding to main access road from Newton-on-Ouse
Morton-on-Swale
Additional flooded property noted on Main Street and concerns raised if flood Main street problem to be added to plans
banks fail
Northallerton Quaker Lane and Friarage Street identified as problem areas Aware of these problems, Quaker lane an infrastructure issue, Friarage street in flood
zone 3 area.
Romanby No response No actions required
Rudby see Hutton Rudby see Hutton Rudby
Shipton No additional information supplied in response No actions required
Snape No response No actions required
Sowerby
Advised of property flooding issue and Blakey Bridge flooding. Also query Problem areas will be added to plans. Will respond regards Thirsk
regards Thirsk
Stillington No response No actions required
Stokesley No additional information supplied in response No actions required

Consultees Comments Actions
PARISH/TOWN COUNCILS contd.
Thirsk Detailed response supplied Amendments made to introductory text and extent of flooding problems in the parish
noted in text and on plans
Tollerton No response No actions required
Topcliffe
Confirmed existing areas identified in SFRA. Other comments made
Othe comments passed to forward plans
regarding development location preferences
West Tanfield No additional information supplied in response No actions required
IDB's
Bedale and Upper Swale Concerns raised regarding the suggested reduced maintenance along Bedale No actions required
Beck
Cod Beck A number of problem areas identified in area of IDB responsibility Problem areas in or close to urban areas added to plans
Foss Existing problem area at Mill adjacent Stillington identified Already noted on plans
Kyle and Upper Ouse No additional flooding information supplied in response No actions required
Lower Swale A number of problem areas identified in area of IDB responsibility Problem areas in or close to urban areas added to plans
River Wiske A number of problem areas identified in area of IDB responsibility Problem areas in or close to urban areas added to plans
ORGANISATIONS
Environment Agency EA positive about the SFRA, identified some alterations to introductory text Introductory text altered to reflect EA comments
Yorkshire Water
Comments and suggested alterations to introductory text and village
narratives
Introductory text and village narratives altered as appropriate also provides useful
evidence base
Northumbrian Water Comments on village narratives in NWL area We are aware of most issues raised, minor alterations to narrative text
NYCC - Richmond General information provided on villages Minor alterations to village narratives
NYCC - Thirsk Limited response only concerning Stillington Already aware of issue raised no alterations required
NYCC - Mike Roberts Comments on village narratives Alterations made to village narratives and provides useful evidence base
NYCC - Fiona Stone No comments No action required

ANNEX B
STRATEGIC FLOOD ZONE PLANS
86

0 2 4 8 Miles
Stokesley Flood Zone
Legend
Flood Zone 3 (High Risk)
Licence No: 100018555
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the
Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright.
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Flood Zone 2 (Low Risk)
Hambleton CIP Areas

0 2 4 8 Miles
Northallerton Flood Zone
Legend
Flood Zone 3 (High Risk)
Licence No: 100018555
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the
Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright.
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Flood Zone 2 (Low Risk)
Hambleton CIP Areas

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles
Bedale Flood Zone
Legend
Flood Zone 3 (High Risk)
Licence No: 100018555
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the
Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright.
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Flood Zone 2 (Low Risk)
Hambleton CIP Areas

0 2 4 8 Miles
Thirsk Flood Zone
Legend
Flood Zone 3 (High Risk)
Licence No: 100018555
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the
Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright.
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Flood Zone 2 (Low Risk)
Hambleton CIP Areas

0 2 4 8 Miles
Easingwold Flood Zone
Legend
Flood Zone 3 (High Risk)
Licence No: 100018555
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the
Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright.
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Flood Zone 2 (Low Risk)
Hambleton CIP Areas