Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - South Worcestershire ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The ability to manage flood risk for new development must consider a wide range of issues,which includes how any evacuation of the occupants would be handled, how the newdevelopment fits in with the existing flood management provision and, should there be an event,how quickly the wider area would recover and return to normal. Some areas, either throughnatural or artificial topography, are easier to integrate flood management measures into the newdevelopment, without causing a significant alteration in its design and its place setting. Thesemeasures can have the potential to cause an alteration to the flood risk to adjacent property or inflood cells on the opposite bank.5.4 Sequential TestThe Sequential Test must be performed when considering the placement of future developmentand for planning application proposals. The NPPF Technical Guidance gives detailedinstructions on how to perform the test. These instructions on how to perform the test should beused with the following information from the SFRA:Identify the area to be assessed (including alternatives) on the Flood Zone Maps that areprovided with this assessment;Establish the risk of flooding from other sources again using the Maps in this SFRA; andFollow the instructions given in the Technical Guidance.The Sequential Test is used to direct all new development (through the site allocation process) tolocations at least risk of flooding, giving highest priority to Flood Zone 1. MHDC, WDC and WCChave sequentially tested the development sites in the SWDP.The Level 2 SFRA provides further flood risk evidence which the councils can use to assesswhether it is necessary to revisit/update the Sequential Test. The Environment Agency (2009) 12recommends that the following approach is used by local planning authorities to apply theSequential Test to planning applications located in Flood Zones 2 or 3. There are three stagesto the test, as follows:Stage 1 – Strategic application & development vulnerabilityStage 2 – Defining the evidence baseStage 3 – Applying the Sequential TestStage 1 – Strategic Application & Development VulnerabilityThe Sequential Test can be considered adequately demonstrated if both of thefollowing criteria are met:The Sequential Test has already been carried out for the site (for the samedevelopment type) at the strategic level (development plan) in line withprocedures agreed within the National Planning Policy Framework; andThe development vulnerability is appropriate to the Flood Zone (see Table 3 ofNPPF Technical Guidance)1.1 Has the Sequential Test already been carried out for this development at thedevelopment plan level? If yes, reference should be provided to the site allocation andDevelopment Plan Document (DPD) in question.1.2 Is the flood risk vulnerability classification of the proposal appropriate to the FloodZone in which the site is located according to Tables 1 and 3 of the NPPF TechnicalGuidance? The vulnerability of the development should be clearly stated.Finish here if the answer is ‘Yes’ to both questions 1.1 and 1.2.Only complete Stages 2 and 3 if the answer to either questions 1.1 and 1.2 is ‘No’.12 Environment Agency (2009) Demonstrating the flood risk (PPS25) Sequential Test for Planning Applications, PPS25FRSA (national) version 2.0 Advise issued on 27 January 20092012s5947 S Worcestershire Level 2 SFRA Update FINAL Report v1.0.doc 30
Stage 2 – Defining the Evidence Base2.1 State the geographical area over which the test is to be applied.2.2 If greater or less than the boundary of South Worcestershire justify why thegeographical area for applying the test has been chosen.Identify the geographical area of search over which the test is to be applied:This will usually be over the whole of the South Worcestershire but may be reduced wherejustified by the functional arrangements of the development (e.g. catchment area for aschool or doctors surgery) or relevant objectives in the Local Plan. For example, if a localneed such as affordable housing or town centre renewal has been identified as part of theSustainability Appraisal process that has reached `submission' stage, this might mean thatthe geographical area of search is restricted to a specific regeneration area. Equally, insome circumstances it may be appropriate to expand the search area beyond the councilboundary for uses that have a national market.2.3 Identify the source of reasonable available sites, either:Background / evidence base documents (state which), or if not availableOther sites known to the councils that meet the functional requirements of the applicationIdentify the source of ‘reasonably available’ alternative sites:These sites will usually be drawn from the evidence base / background documents thathave been produced to inform the emerging Local Plan. For example, an important sourceof information for housing sites and development land will be provided by the SHLAA andthe Employment Land Review (ELR).In the absence of background documents, `reasonably available' sites would include anysites that are known to the LPA and that meet the functional requirements of the applicationin question, and where necessary, meet the Local Plan Policy criterion for windfalldevelopment (see below).Windfall sites:These are sites which have not been allocated in the Local Plan process but are normallywithin the development boundaries within which the principle of development is acceptable.The Environment Agency recommend that the acceptability of windfall applications in floodrisk areas should be considered at the strategic level through a policy setting out broadlocations and quantities of windfall development that would be acceptable or not inSequential Test terms.In the absence of a flood risk windfall policy, it may be possible (where the data issufficiently robust) for the LPA to apply the Sequential Test taking into account historicwindfall rates and their distribution across the district relative to Flood Zones. Wherehistoric and future trends evidence indicate that housing need in the district through windfallcan be met largely/entirely by development outside high flood risk areas, this may providegrounds for factoring this into the consideration of `reasonably available' alternative sites atthe planning application stage.2.4 State the method used for comparing the flood risk between sites, whether it is thisSFRA or an alternative (e.g. Environment Agency flood map, site specific flood riskassessment) as new information becomes available.Identify the means of comparing flood risk between each site:As a starting point this will be the Environment Agency Map showing the Flood Zones. Ifcomparing sites within the same Flood Zone it is necessary to use a SFRA showing avariation in risk throughout the Flood Zone or site specific FRAs where these are availableand suitable for the purpose.2012s5947 S Worcestershire Level 2 SFRA Update FINAL Report v1.0.doc 31
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 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 66 and 67: Table 7-7: 2012SC (Stonebridge Cros
Page 72 and 73: emergence. Further assessment of gr
Page 76 and 77: Table 7-10: SWDP6/NEWJ (Land North
Page 78 and 79: Estimated Attenuation Storage Volum
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:
Sources of Flood Risk:Primary flood
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:
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 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Table 7-26: SWDP13/9 (Land off Mayf
Page 132 and 133:
Greenfield Runoff Rate (l/s/ha)Esti
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
eceiving watercourse to ensure flow
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Table 7-29: SWDP18/6 Land rear of t
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
New or re-development should adopt
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Table 7-32: SWDP23/26 (Land between
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Table 7-34: SWDP24/8 (Site behind H
Page 158 and 159:
SUDS and the development site:SUDS
Page 160 and 161:
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 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
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 178 and 179:
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?