Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - South Worcestershire ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sources of Flood Risk:Primary flood risk to the site is fluvial, resulting from overtopping of the BrunchesBrook, to the west of the site. Roughly half of the site, to the western side, fallswithin Flood Zone 2. The Childswickham Road and the B4632 Cheltenham Road,some of the main access roads to the site, is at risk from fluvial flooding.This site is shown to be partially within one of the County Council’s historic floodhotspots.Surface water presents a risk to the site. Further development and creation ofimpermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk.Childswickham Road and the B4632 Cheltenham, some of the main access roads tothe site, are at risk from surface water.Surface Water Drainage:As an indication of requirements to manage surface water runoff at the development site anassessment of the soil types, greenfield runoff rate and attenuation storage volume is includedbelow. Storage volumes displayed are calculated with an assumption that 75% of the site will bedeveloped impermeable ground. A 25% increase in rainfall depths has been included torepresent predicted future climate change effects.PLEASE NOTE: This assessment has been carried out using broad-scale datasets and aims toprovide an indication of the likely opportunities and constraints for this development site. Adetailed drainage assessment based on site-specific conditions should be carried out by asuitably qualified professional and submitted with any planning application. The values belowshould not be used for design purposes.Soil TypeFluvial DepositsGreenfield Runoff Rate (l/s/ha) 1 in 2 year 14.22012s5947 S Worcestershire Level 2 SFRA Update FINAL Report v1.0.doc 140
Estimated Attenuation Storage Volume (m 3 ) 3520 - 4807SUDS and the development site:1 in 100 year (plus climate change) 56.1SUDS TypeSource ControlInfiltrationDetentionFiltrationConveyancePotentialSuitabilityCommentsMost source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Permeablepaving is unlikely to be suitable due to high risk of groundwaterfloodingMapping suggests underlying soil is likely to be permeable.However, the high risk of groundwater flooding would makeinfiltration unsuitableDetention techniques may be suitable if a non-permeable liner isprovided to prevent the ingress of groundwater. Mapping suggeststhat site slopes may be steep so larger features may not be viableFiltration techniques may be suitable if a non-permeable liner isprovided to prevent the ingress of groundwaterAll conveyance techniques are likely to be suitableThis site is located within a flooding hotspot so all efforts should be made tominimise the rate and volume of runoff leaving the site.The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.Residential developments should provide at least two independent SUDS features inseries to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.Flood Defences:None.Effects of Climate Change:Increased rainfall intensity. Increased water levels in the Brunches Brook.Flood Risk Implications for Development:All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate inaccordance with NPPF Technical Guidance.A detailed site-specific flood risk assessment, including hazard mapping, will berequired for any development in Flood Zone 2, or for sites greater than 1ha in FloodZone 1.Development of the site is proposed to focus on residential uses.Resilience measures will be required if buildings are situated in the flood risk area.Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surfacewater runoff from potential development.Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects.New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SUDS techniques toreduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff.Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of thereceiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within thecatchment.The site falls within an area indicated to potentially be susceptible to groundwateremergence. Further assessment of groundwater risk would be required and anassessment of suitable surface water mitigation techniques should be made at thedetailed FRA level.Access needs would need to be outside of the floodplain, onto the B4632 StationRoad.Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.2012s5947 S Worcestershire Level 2 SFRA Update FINAL Report v1.0.doc 141
Page 1 and 2:
2012s5947 South WorcestershireStrat
Page 4 and 5:
ContractThis Level 2 Strategic Floo
Page 6:
Executive SummaryThis report is an
Page 10 and 11:
Table 7-16: SWDP8/1 (Broomhall Comm
Page 12 and 13:
NRDOrdinary WatercourseOS NGRPFRAPi
Page 14 and 15:
identify the level of detail requir
Page 16 and 17:
1.4 Approach1.4.1 General Assessmen
Page 18 and 19:
1.5.3 Severn Trent WaterSevern Tren
Page 20 and 21:
2 The Planning Framework and Flood
Page 22 and 23:
Additionally Provision 110 of the A
Page 24 and 25:
Risk ManagementAuthority (RMA)Distr
Page 26 and 27:
3 Understanding Flood Risk in South
Page 28 and 29:
earth embankment, flood wall and fl
Page 30 and 31:
4 How Flood Risk is Assessed4.1 Def
Page 32 and 33:
Zone 1Zone 2Zone 3aZone 3bTable 4-1
Page 34 and 35:
etween the proposed level of commit
Page 36 and 37:
5 Mapping and risk based approach5.
Page 38 and 39:
The ability to manage flood risk fo
Page 40 and 41:
Stage 3 - Applying the Sequential T
Page 42 and 43:
6 Overview of future developmentThe
Page 44 and 45:
A proposed 340 dwelling have been a
Page 46 and 47:
Figure 6-5: Proposed Pershore Alloc
Page 48 and 49:
6.3 Windfall sitesWindfall is unall
Page 50 and 51:
7 Summary assessment of SWDP develo
Page 52 and 53:
SUDS TypeSource ControlsTable 7-2:
Page 54 and 55:
7.4 Summary tables and mapsTable 7-
Page 56 and 57:
SUDS and the development site:SUDS
Page 58 and 59:
Sources of Flood Risk:Primary flood
Page 60 and 61:
Table 7-5: LP1 (Ivy Lane)OS NGR: SP
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Table 7-7: 2012SC (Stonebridge Cros
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
emergence. Further assessment of gr
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Table 7-10: SWDP6/NEWJ (Land North
Page 78 and 79:
Estimated Attenuation Storage Volum
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Table 7-12: SWDP6/6 (Old Northwick
Page 84 and 85:
Soil TypeGreenfield Runoff Rate (l/
Page 86 and 87:
Sources of Flood Risk:Surface water
Page 88 and 89:
Table 7-14: SWDP6/21 (Former Hallow
Page 90 and 91:
SUDS and the development siteSUDS T
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Table 7-16: SWDP8/1 (Broomhall Comm
Page 96 and 97:
Surface water presents a risk to th
Page 98 and 99: Table 7-17: SWDP8/2 (Temple Laugher
Page 100 and 101: A44 Bromyard road, the A4440 Grove
Page 102 and 103: Table 7-18: SWDP8/3 (Land to the re
Page 104 and 105: impermeable surfaces may result in
Page 106 and 107: Table 7-19: SWDP9/2 (Land east of S
Page 108 and 109: impermeable surfaces may result in
Page 110 and 111: Table 7-20: SWDP9/3 (Boxing Club)OS
Page 112 and 113: Estimated Attenuation Storage Volum
Page 114 and 115: Sources of Flood Risk:Primary flood
Page 116 and 117: Table 7-22: SWDP9/7 (Canal Basin Pr
Page 118 and 119: Soil TypeGreenfield Runoff Rate (l/
Page 120 and 121: Sources of Flood Risk:The main sour
Page 122 and 123: Table 7-24: SWDP13/4 (Former playin
Page 124 and 125: Surface Water Drainage:As an indica
Page 126 and 127: Table 7-25: SWDP13/5 (Former Recrea
Page 130 and 131: Table 7-26: SWDP13/9 (Land off Mayf
Page 132 and 133: Greenfield Runoff Rate (l/s/ha)Esti
Page 136 and 137: eceiving watercourse to ensure flow
Page 140 and 141: Table 7-29: SWDP18/6 Land rear of t
Page 146 and 147: New or re-development should adopt
Page 150 and 151: Table 7-32: SWDP23/26 (Land between
Page 156 and 157: Table 7-34: SWDP24/8 (Site behind H
Page 158 and 159: SUDS and the development site:SUDS
Page 162 and 163: Table 7-36: SWDP24/11 (Site behind
Page 164 and 165: overtopping of an unnamed tributary
Page 166 and 167: Table 7-37: SWDP24/13 (Land east of
Page 172 and 173: Table 7-39: SWDP25/9 (Land at Park
Page 174 and 175: access roads to the site are at ris
Page 176 and 177: Table 7-40: SWDP/VPx (Vale Park ext
Page 180 and 181: 8 FRA requirements for developers8.
Page 182 and 183: Figure 8-1: Rationale for flood res
Page 184 and 185: Local planning bodies should:Promot
Page 186 and 187: Temporary BarriersTemporary barrier
Page 188 and 189: flood risk. Development locations s
Page 190 and 191: 9 Recommended policy for management
Page 192 and 193: 10 Outcomes10.1 Summary of work und
Page 194 and 195: Appendices2012s5947 S Worcestershir
Page 196 and 197: AFlood Zone mapping2012s5947 S Worc
Page 198 and 199:
BClimate change mapping2012s5947 S
Page 200 and 201:
CHazard mapping2012s5947 S Worceste
Page 202 and 203:
DSurface water flood risk mapping20
Page 204 and 205:
D.2 200 years2012s5947 S Worcesters
Page 206 and 207:
EFloodplain policy mapping2012s5947
Page 208 and 209:
FSummary of risk to all proposed al
Page 210 and 211:
GProperty and critical infrastructu
Page 212 and 213:
Number of environmental sites at ri
Page 214 and 215:
HConsultation and communication2012
Page 216:
Offices atAtherstoneDoncasterEdinbu
show all

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - South Worcestershire ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?