Hartlepool Borough Council

Transcription

1 Hartlepool Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 Volume 1 - SFRA understanding the SFRA process May 2010 Tom Britcliffe Principal Planning Officer Department of Regeneration & Planning Services Bryan Hanson House Hanson Square Hartlepool TS24 7BT

2 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 ii

3 JBA Office JBA Consulting The Brew House Wilderspool Park Greenhall's Avenue WARRINGTON WA4 6HL JBA Project Manager Sam Wingfield Revision History Revision Ref / Date Issued Amendments Issued to Draft Report (v.1.0) November 2009 Final Report (v.2.0) May 2010 Internal review Updated after EA and HBC review 1 Digital Copy (as a pdf) to Tom Britcliffe and Cameron Sked Tom Britcliffe and Cameron Sked Contract This report describes work commissioned by Tom Britcliffe, on behalf of Hartlepool Borough Council, by an dated 28st August Hartlepool Borough Council s representative for the contract was Tom Britcliffe. Sam Wingfield of JBA Consulting carried out this work. Prepared by Joanne Harvatt BA MSc PhD Reviewed by Sam Wingfield BSc MRes Purpose This document has been prepared as a final report for Hartlepool Borough Council. JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to Hartlepool Borough Council. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 iii

4 Copyright Jeremy Benn Associates Limited 2010 Carbon Footprint 336g A printed copy of this document will result in a carbon footprint of 264g if 100% postconsumer recycled paper is used and 336g if primary-source paper is used. These figures assume the report is printed in black and white on A4 paper and in duplex. JBA is a carbon neutral company and the carbon emissions from our activities are offset. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 iv

5 Executive Summary Hartlepool Level 1 SFRA This report has been produced as a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for Hartlepool Borough Council (BC), in accordance with PPS25 and its Practice Guide. Development & Flood Risk Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) have a raft of issues to consider when planning future development. These are dictated by Government Planning Policy Statements. Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) relates to development and the constraint of flood risk, with its overarching aim of avoiding development in flood risk areas. This is achieved through PPS25 by the sequential approach to land allocation, meaning that development should be firstly avoided in flood risk areas wherever possible before considering the vulnerability of development planned or possible mitigation measures. The sequential approach is governed by two tests; the Sequential and Exceptions Test. The consideration of flood risk to people and development must be considered by the LPA at the earliest stage of spatial planning decisions and these tests allows this process to be transparent and affective. In order to carry out these tests a coherent understanding of flood risk is needed at a local level. High level policy and guidance documents such as Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs), Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) and Regional Flood Risk Appraisals (RFRA) have provided a good introduction in to flood risk; however they do not provide the level of detail required for the LPA to make the right spatial planning decisions. Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) offer this local level of understanding. SFRAs provide the LPA with a central source of all relevant flood risk information and the evidence base to make tough planning decisions and develop focused local policies required to inform the Local Development Framework (LDF). The SFRA therefore becomes a key planning tool that enables the LPA to select and develop sustainable site allocations. A Level 1 SFRA offers the foundation of this evidence base. It is based purely on the collation of existing flood risk information. The Environment Agency Flood Map is the main source of fluvial and tidal flood information across England and Wales and is the basis of PPS25 Flood Zones used in the Sequential and Exception Tests. The Level 1 SFRA must also consider flooding from all other sources (surface water, sewers, groundwater and artificial sources). This is only achievable through consulting with those stakeholders with specific interest or knowledge in other sources of flooding. The Level 1 SFRA is assisted greatly by the use of Strategic Flood Risk Maps providing information on flood risk factors needed to be taken into account. The PPS25 Flood Zone Map enables the LPA to carry out the first sweep of Sequential Testing. The additional maps produced as part of the Level 1 SFRA should be used during the Sequential Test sieving process further identify inappropriate development. Once the LPA has carried out the Sequential Test sieving process, they still may wish to allocate vulnerable development in high-risk areas due to the wider need for economic growth and regeneration. In this case the allocations must pass the Exception Test. The evidence provided in the Level 1 SFRA is not detailed enough to justify development through the Exception Test. In order to achieve this Level 2 SFRA must be carried out. A Level 2 SFRA provides the LPA with a detailed understanding of flood hazard, assessing flood depth, velocity and residual risks such as flood defence breaching or overtopping. This information provided in the Level 2 SFRA will give the LPA a much more detailed understanding of flood risk at potential development sites. Although it will not provide all the information needed to apply the Exception Test, it will include the appropriateness of the development and the likelihood of it remaining safe if flooded. If the LPA has justified the development by passing parts a) and b) of the Exception Test, it must be supported by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in order to pass part c). 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 v

6 The Three Level 1 SFRA Volumes The Level 1 SFRA is presented in three volumes, each with their own purpose and intended audience. VOLUME I: Understanding the SFRA Process Volume I of the Hartlepool SFRA introduces the SFRA process. It is an excellent reference document for current flood risk management drivers, national regional and local planning policy and introduced Environment Agency policy such as the Tees CFMPs and SMPs. The report also provides a brief understanding of the mechanisms of flooding and flood risk for those new to the subject. More importantly, it provides a comprehensive discussion on PPS25, the Sequential, Exception Test and links regional and local flood risk assessments. Volume I holds the main Consultation & Data Management section, identifying key stakeholders and their involvement in the SFRA process. This Volume should be read by: Spatial Planners, Development Control, Planners, Developers, Emergency Planners, and Key Stakeholders including the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water. VOLUME II: SFRA Technical Report Following on from the Consultation & Data Management section in Volume I, Volume II provides the technical information and methods used in the assessment of flood risk across Hartlepool. It assesses six sources of flooding including; fluvial, tidal, surface water, sewers, groundwater and reservoirs and other artificial sources. The Volume also introduces the Environment Agency Flood Warning System and residual risks associated with flood defences. As discussed, flood risk has many dimensions and as a result has been presented through a suite of maps. These extend the level of detail in the Environment Agency Flood Zone maps. The SFRA maps include: SET A: PPS25 Flood Zones SET B: Flood Zone 3 Depths SET C: Tidal Climate Change Sensitivity SET D: Flood Risk Management Measures SET E: Areas Naturally Vulnerable to Surface Water Flooding Volume II along with the suite of SFRA maps, should provide the evidence base of the Hartlepool Level 1 SFRA. It has been arranged in one volume to allow technical information to be easily updated when reviewed. It is only this Volume that can be updated with new flood risk information when available. Volume I and III would be difficult to update without completely revisiting the SFRA process. Section 4 provides the results of the first pass of the Sequential Test against Hartlepool Council s proposed development allocations. This Volume should be read by: Spatial Planners, Development Control, Planners, 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 vi

7 Developers, Emergency Planners, and Key Stakeholders including the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water. VOLUME III: SFRA Guidance for Spatial & Development Management Volume III of the Hartlepool SFRA provides guidance and recommendations to spatial planners, planners, developers and emergency planners, how to use the flood risk information provided in Volume II and further plans which are required to improve the understanding of flood risk in Hartlepool. Initially the Volume discusses further work required such as Level 2 SFRAs and SWMPs, which has been informed by the findings of Volume II. This extra work will provide Hartlepool BC with a strategic and coherent framework for managing flood risk in their area. This Volume should be read by: Spatial Planners Development Control Planners Developers Emergency Planners Key Stakeholders including the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 vii

8 Contents Executive Summary... v 1 Introduction Background Scope & Objectives Study Area The Planning Framework Introduction Flood Risk Management Drivers National Planning Policy Regional Policy Drivers Environment Agency Policy North East Coastal Authorities Group Shoreline Management Plan Local Planning Policy Summary Understanding Flood Risk Introduction Sources of Flooding Flooding Likelihood & Consequence Flooding Impact on Property, People & the Environment The Sequential Approach Introduction The Sequential Test The Exception Test Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification Levels of Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Applying flood risk to the LDD Applying the Sequential Test and assessing the likelihood of passing the Exception Test Consultation & Data Management Consultation Process Key Stakeholders SFRA Data Management & Review SFRA Data Gaps SFRA Monitoring Appendices A. B. C. Flood Risk Zones Flood Risk Classification Hartlepool SFRA Data Register s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0

9 List of Figures Figure 1 - Hartlepool Borough Council Authority Boundary... 3 Figure 2 - Tees Catchment Flood Management Plan Policy Units Figure 3 - Flooding From All Sources Figure 4 - Source Pathway Receptor Model Figure 5 - Where the Exception Test Applies Figure 6 - Taking flood risk into account in LDDs Figure 7 - Sequential and Exception Test Flow Diagram Figure 8 - Sequential and Exception tests Key Steps Figure 9-1st and 2nd Pass of Proposed Development Sites Sequential Test Figure 10 - Identifying the Likelihood of passing the Exception Test Figure 11 - Hartlepool SFRA Data Register (screenshot) List of Tables Table 1- Relevant Catchment Flood Management Plan Policies Table 2 - Relevant Shoreline Management Plan 2 polices Table 3 - Shoreline Management Plan 2 Action Plan for Hartlepool Borough Council Table 4 - Reservoir Consequence Classification Table 5- NFCDD Condition Ratings for Flood Defences Table 6- Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Review Triggers Abbreviations ABD AEP CFMP CLG COW CS DPDs EA EU FAS FEH FCERM FRA FRM Areas Benefiting from Defences Annual Exceedance Probability Catchment Flood Management Plans Communities and Local Government Critical Ordinary Watercourse Core Strategy Development Plan Documents Environment Agency European Union Flood Alleviation Schemes Flood Estimation Handbook Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Flood Risk Assessment Flood Risk Management 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0

10 IDB IDD IFM LDDs LDF LPAs NEA NFCDD NPD NWL PPG PPS RBD RBMP RFRA RPB RPG RSS RVFD SA SEA SFRA SMP SoP SPD SuDS SWMP UDP WCS Internal Drainage Board Internal Drainage District Indicative Floodplain Map Local Development Documents Local Development Framework Local Planning Authorities North East Assemble National Fluvial and Coastal Defence Database National Property Dataset Northumbrian Water Ltd Planning Policy Guidance Planning Policy Statement River Basin District River Basin Management Plan Regional Flood Risk Assessment Regional Planning Bodies Regional Planning Guidance Regional Spatial Strategy Receptors Vulnerable to Flooding Database Sustainability Appraisal Strategic Environmental Assessment Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Shoreline Management Plans Standard of Protection Supplementary Planning Document Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems Surface Water Management Plan Unitary Development Plan Water Cycle Study 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0

11 1 Introduction 1.1 Background JBA Consulting was commissioned in August 2009 by Hartlepool Borough Council (BC) to undertake a review of the existing Tees Valley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) published in This report details a Level 1 SFRA for Hartlepool BC alone and has been prepared in accordance with current best practice, Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) 1. PPS25 reinforced the responsibility of LPAs to ensure that flood risk is managed effectively and sustainably as an integral part of the planning process, balancing socioeconomic needs, existing framework of landscape and infrastructure, and flood risk. Key additional areas of work building on the previous SFRA include: Taking account of advances in risk information from data collection and process; Inclusion of climate change mapping; Identification of functional floodplain; Consideration of flooding from other sources ; and A greater focus on the application of the PPS25 Exception Test. 1.2 Scope & Objectives Flooding is a natural process and does not respect political demarcations or administrative boundaries; it is influenced principally by natural elements of rainfall, tides, geology, topography, rivers and streams and man made interventions such as flood defences, roads, buildings, sewers and other infrastructure. As was seen in the summer 2007 floods, flooding can cause massive disruption to communities, damage to property and possessions and even loss of life. For this reason it is very important to try and avoid developing in flood risk areas in the first instance. Where this is not possible the vulnerability of the proposed land use to flooding should be considered and measures taken to minimise flood risk to people, property and the environment. This is the thrust of the risk based sequential approach to managing flood risk and it is the backbone of PPS25. Current Government policy requires local authorities to demonstrate that due regard has been given to the issue of flood risk as part of the planning process. It also requires that flood risk is managed in an effective and sustainable manner and where new development is exceptionally necessary in flood risk areas, the policy aim is to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere, where possible flood risks should be reduced overall. A SFRA therefore becomes a planning tool that enables the Council to select and develop sustainable site allocations away from vulnerable flood risk areas. The assessment focuses on the existing site allocations within the borough but also sets out the procedure to be followed when assessing additional sites for development in the future. It is recognised that considerable land use pressures for re-generation, inward investment and economic growth exist across Hartlepool and this SFRA will inform/support the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and guide the Council in their strategies, policies and decision making in respect of their Local Development Framework (LDF) and Local Development Documents (LDDs). In addition to informing site allocations the SFRA will inform decision making on nonallocated planning applications, strategic flood alleviation measures and other measures to reduce flood risk to existing development, planning requirements for new development and emergency planning. 1 Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 1

12 The key objectives of this SFRA are to: Investigate and identify the extent and severity of flood risk to the area at present and in the future, under the terms of PPS25; Contribute to the Council s Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and LDF ; Enable the Council to apply the Sequential Test and the Exception Test; Provide strategic flood risk guidance and advice to planners and developers; Identify specific locations where further and more detailed flood risk data and assessment work is required. This includes Level 2 SFRAs and the scope for Surface Water Management Plans and/or Water Cycle Studies; Identify the level of detail required for site-specific FRAs; Inform the emergency planning process; Improve stakeholder joint working and the sharing of data, information and the understanding of flood risk; and Be used as a reference document. There is a recent trend developing since the publication of the PPS25 Practice Guide in 2008 that SFRAs are more than a land use planning tool, and can provide a much broader and inclusive vehicle for integrated, strategic and local Flood Risk Management (FRM) assessment and delivery. Since publication of the Pitt Review, it is apparent that SFRAs will provide the central holder for data, information and consideration for all flood risk issues relating to flooding from all sources at a local level; and provide the linkage between CFMPs, SMPs, RFRAs, SWMPs and appropriate sustainable land uses over a number of planning cycles. SFRAs are proving a pivotal vehicle in the introduction and promotion of a local authority, post Pitt Review, role in local flood management. SFRAs need to be fit for the future to help communities meet the considerable FRM and climate change related challenges that lay ahead. 1.3 Study Area The study area Hartlepool Borough comprises part of the Tees Valley area, formed by the five boroughs of Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees. Figure 1 shows the Hartlepool Borough Council boundary. The Borough of Hartlepool covers an area of about 9,400 hectares (over 36 square miles) and has a population of about 90, It is bounded to the east by the North Sea and encompasses the main urban area of the town of Hartlepool and a rural hinterland containing the five villages of Hart, Elwick, Dalton Piercy, Newton Bewley and Greatham. The town has a long history, the first recorded settlement being centred around the Saxon Monastery founded in 640AD. The town as it is today has grown around the natural haven which became its commercial port and from which its heavy industrial base developed. Over recent years the area has seen substantial investment which has completely transformed its environment, overall prosperity and its image. New high quality business facilities and visitor attractions are being developed in the areas vacated by the heavy industries. Hartlepool is a sustainable settlement with most of the needs of the residents in terms of housing, employment, shopping and leisure being able to be met within the town. The Durham Coast railway line between Sunderland and Middlesbrough runs through the centre of the town, and the A19 trunk road which crosses north/south through the western rural part of the Borough is readily accessed via the A689 and the A179 roads which originate in the town centre. The major overall risk of flooding for this policy unit comes from the risk of tidal flooding from the North Sea. Other sources of flooding include Burn Valley Beck, the Slake, sewerage system (in particular at High Tunstall), highway drainage system, tidal ingress, 2 Hartlepool Borough Council Hartlepool Local Plan: Including Mineral and Waste Policies. Hartlepool Borough Council 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 2

13 overland flow and culvert blockages. The primary watercourse is Burn Valley Beck and the Slake. The Slake watercourse drains into Victoria Harbour, this watercourse is culverted for much of its length and is part of Northumbrian Water Ltd s surface water drainage system. Burn Valley Beck (south of the Slake) drains from the east of Dalton Piercy, and discharges into the North Sea near Newburn Bridge. This watercourse is an open channel from where it rises to Penrhyn Street. From Penrhyn Street to the coast the watercourse is culverted as a public sewer. Figure 1 - Hartlepool Borough Council Authority Boundary Crown Copyright. All rights reserved ( ) (2009) 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 3

14 2 The Planning Framework 2.1 Introduction The purpose of this section of the report is to identify and outline those high level documents which have been taken into account in preparing this SFRA, from a national to local level. The land use planning process is driven by a whole host of policy guidance on a national, regional and local level. Whilst the majority of these policies are not aimed at mitigating flood risk, there are key links at strategic, tactical and operational levels between land use and spatial planning (Regional and Local Government), and Flood Risk Management (FRM) planning (Environment Agency), which should be considered as part of a planned and integrated approach to delivering sustainable development. The sustainability appraisal will help draw together these links and balance the application of wider social, economic and environmental planning policy and guidance. Flood risk assessment is required at all levels of the planning process and for all major developments in flood risk areas; these play and increasingly important role in assisting effective delivery of key planning objectives. 2.2 Flood Risk Management Drivers The principal FRM policy drivers are brought together in the Government s recently released draft Flood and Water Management Bill and it is an important part of the Government s response to Sir Michael Pitt s Report on the summer 2007 floods. It also gives effect to a number of commitments in the Government s Future Water strategy document. In addition, the draft Bill responds to a number of climate change challenges including, more frequent extreme weather events causing a greater risk of flooding and drought, increased population, increased water demand and more water quality problems. It provides the Environment Agency with a strategic overview role for flood risk in England and Wales and gives local authorities in England a clear leadership role in local flood risk management encompassing all sources of flooding. An improved integrated and risk based approach is proposed to the future management of flood risks, and this requires other concerns such as sustainability, biodiversity and the whole water cycle to be taken into account by local authorities and other relevant organisations. A core policy thread running through all current policy drivers is the fundamental shift in emphasis from building defences to prevent flooding, to one of managing flood risk by using a suite of measures. All operating authorities are required to invest in the provision of sustainable flood risk management and this includes LPAs adopting a flood risk management hierarchy of assessing, avoiding, substituting, controlling and mitigating flood risk through the land use planning system. They should have regard to flooding from all sources (particularly surface water and not just from rivers and the sea). Government does however; recognise that in some circumstances, appropriate mitigation measures may still involve new, or improving and maintaining existing flood defences where justified, to protect increasingly vulnerable communities. Current key policy related documents provide LPAs with important and valuable knowledge on the strategic direction of flood risk management and assist their strategic land use planning decision making for re-generation, inward investment and growth etc. Key documents currently influencing FRM policy are: EU Floods Directive (2007) Draft Floods and Water Management Bill Defra (2009) Future Water (2008) Improving Surface Water Drainage Defra (2008) 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 4

15 Making Space for Water Defra (2005) Planning Policy 25: Development & Flood Risk - (2006) Planning Policy 25: Development & Flood Risk Practice Guide - (2008) Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods Sir Michael Pitt (2008) Catchment Flood Management Plans Shoreline Management Plans EU Floods Directive The EU Floods Directive aims to reduce and manage the risk floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. Member States have two years in which to transpose its provisions into domestic legislation and the first requirements of the Directive begin at the end of By this date, an evidence base for flood risk should be developed to map the risk and then produce plans to manage it. Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) for all sources of flooding need to be prepared showing the impact of historic flooding and the potential impact of a repeat event. Following this, areas of potentially Significant Flood Risk (SFR) need to be defined. In addition, and by the end of 2013, flood hazard and flood risk maps for the SFR areas are required and be co-ordinated with, and possibly integrated into, the reviews of River Basin Districts under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Finally, by the end of 2015, Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) must be established to aim to reduce the potential adverse consequences of flooding and/or reduce its likelihood. Dec 2011 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) Review by Dec 2017 then 6 yearly intervals Dec 2013 Mapping Elements Review by Dec 2019 then 6 yearly intervals Dec 2015 Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP) Review by Dec 2021 then 6 yearly intervals The Government propose to use existing flood risk planning outputs of RFRAs and SFRAs to deliver the requirements of PFRAs. It is also proposed that local authorities extend their Level 2 SFRAs to look at the impact of flooding on the environment and cultural heritage when determining SFR areas. In addition, it is proposed that SWMPs will be FRMPs under the Directive, and will be a tool more generally for local flood risk management. This integrated approach will underpin the planning system and guide the location of future development to avoid and minimise flood risk, whilst also meeting the requirements of the Floods Directive. Local authorities, through their land use planning activities, have a key role to play Draft Floods & Water Management Bill The Draft Floods and Water Management Bill proposes new unifying legislation covering all forms of flooding and shifting the emphasis from building defences to managing risk. It aims to: Reduce the likelihood and impacts of flooding; Improve the ability to manage the risk of flooding, by clarifying who is responsible for what; Reduce pollution and improve water quality; Give water companies better powers to conserve water during drought; Reduce red tape and other burdens on water and sewerage companies; and Improve the overall efficiency of the industry. A number of proposals in the draft Bill have particular implications for local authorities, land use planning and related flood risk. These include: The Environment Agency will be given a strategic overview role covering all forms of flooding and will coordinate maps and plans in relation to the sea, main rivers and reservoirs; it will also be given the same powers as Councils to carryout 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 5

16 coastal erosion works and may be a statutory consultee in respect of future coastal erosion planning applications; Local authorities will have an enhanced leadership role in local flood risk management which includes ensuring that flood risk from all sources, including from surface run-off, groundwater and ordinary watercourses, is identified, taken account of in the spatial planning process and managed as part of locally agreed work programmes; Local authorities will develop a suite of measures for managing local flood risk, for example, surface water mapping, appropriate development planning and collating information on flood risk and drainage assets; County and unitary authorities will be responsible for local flood risk assessment and lead in ensuring the production of SFRAs and SWMPs; SFRAs will provide the evidence to allow LPAs to factor flood risk into their LDFs, DPDs and individual planning proposals, and help to determine where SWMPs are needed; Level 2 SFRAs in areas of significant risk would directly inform EU Floods Directive flood risk maps and also inform the production of local FRMPs, such as SWMPs; SWMPs will have a stronger role in coordinating development and investment planning; County and unitary authorities will lead new local partnerships and have responsibility for adopting and maintaining sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) in new development, where they affect more than one property; The automatic right to connect surface water drains and sewers to the public sewerage system will be ended and developers will be required to put SuDS in place in new developments wherever practicable; Surface water connection to public sewers will be conditional on meeting new national standards on SUDS and drainage, and the approval of a SUDS approving body will be needed, and a certificate issued, before development can begin; Increased emphasis is needed on enabling flood water to safely flow overland with green infrastructure and safe flow routes being identified as part of flood risk assessments; County or unitary authorities, the Environment Agency and IDBs will have powers to formally designate natural and man-made features (similar in principle to the Listed Buildings classification), which help to manage flood or coastal risk; they will give formal consent before anyone can change or remove the feature and use enforcement powers where needed; and All relevant authorities will have a duty to cooperate and share information. The content and implications of the draft Bill provide considerable opportunities for improved and integrated land use planning and flood risk management by local authorities and other key partners. The integration and synergy of strategies and plans at national, regional and local scales, is increasingly important to protect vulnerable communities and deliver sustainable re-generation and growth. Key dates for implementing the Draft Floods and Water Management Bill include: 1. June 2011 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) 2. June 2013 Mapping Flood Risk & Hazards 3. June 2015 Flood Risk Management Plans Improving Surface Water Drainage The Improving Surface Water Drainage consultation document was produced in support of the Government s water strategy and in line with Sir Michael Pitt s initial conclusions. Many of the proposals identified have been carried forward into the new draft Flood and Water Management Bill. The consultation considers policy measures to improve the way surface water runoff is managed. In particular, it proposes: 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 6

17 1. Issuing SWMPs as a tool to improve co-ordination between stakeholders involved in drainage and local management of flood risk; 2. Increasing uptake of SUDS by clarifying responsibilities for adoption and management; and 3. Reviewing the ability for premises to connect surface water drainage automatically into the public sewer system. Current roles and responsibilities were considered along with various options for improving the current surface water drainage situation. In particular, the document recognises that SFRAs and SWMPs already form part of the PPS25 planning framework and there is an aim to enhance their role and make stronger links between surface water drainage and strategic planning Making Space for Water Strategy The Making Space for Water Strategy is a milestone document that confirms the Government s strategic direction for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM). Over the 20-year lifetime of the new strategy, Government will implement a more holistic approach to managing flood and coastal erosion risks in England. The approach will involve taking account of all sources of flooding, embedding flood and coastal risk management across a range of Government policies and reflecting other relevant Government policies in the policies and operations of operating authorities for flood and coastal erosion risk management. The 2004 consultation document Making Space for Water sets out the following vision: we want to make space for water so that we can manage the adverse human and economic consequences of flooding and coastal erosion while achieving environmental and social benefits in line with wider government objectives. In other words, the aim of the strategy is to balance the three pillars of sustainability, managing flood risk and ensuring that the social and economic benefits which accrue from growth and development are attained. This balanced approach, integrating sustainable development with responsible risk management, has underpinned this SFRA. Section 7 of the consultation document deals with measures to reduce flood risk through land-use planning, which emphasises the Government s commitment to ensuring that the planning system aims to reduce flood risk wherever possible and, in any event, should not add to it. However, it is acknowledged that 10% of England is already within mapped areas of flood risk and that contained within these areas are some of the Brownfield sites which other areas of Government policy has identified as a priority for future housing provision. The document asserts that over the past five years, 11% of new houses were built in flood-risk areas. The document identifies three sets of measures, which may be undertaken to manage flood risk when development is sited in such areas: Protection measures to provide, at minimum, the standards of protection specified in PPS25; Provision of features such as sacrificial areas and compartmentalisation to reduce the consequences of a flood event should one occur (such as functional floodplain); and Use of construction techniques that increase the flood resistance and resilience of buildings. The document proposes that RSSs and LDFs should take full account of flood risk and incorporate the sequential approach in PPS25. Moreover, the document encourages integration with other planning systems, in particular Catchment Flood Management Plans. Use of European Union (EU) funding streams, such as Intgerreg IIIB is recommended where applicable, to enable Local Authorities to undertake trans-national projects aimed at advancing knowledge and good practice in flood risk management. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 7

18 2.2.5 Making Space for Water: Programme of Work The Making Space for Water: Programme of Work was developed following consultation and takes account of any relevant recommendations that emerged from the Pitt Review into the 2007 floods that affected many parts of England. One of Defra s and CLG s early outputs from the Making Space for Water Programme was the publication, of PPS25 in December This work, together with the Practice Guide forms the Governments required approach to managing and reducing flood risk through the land use planning system. A valuable piece of work looking at Developing a Broader Portfolio of Options to Deliver Flooding and Coastal Solutions has been carried out as part of this programme and is very useful to local authorities and other operating authorities, in their strategic planning of flood risk management. Outputs from this work are available from Defra. Quarterly update reports are released providing details of progress made and key achievements. These reports can be access via the Making Space for Water website at The Pitt Review The Pitt Review has been carried out following the severe floods of summer 2007 and is a key document for local authorities in their consideration of flood risk management. Sir Michael Pitt was asked by Ministers to conduct an independent review of events and report on the lessons that should be learned. In December 2007, an Interim Report was published by the Review team. The Review collected evidence by visiting affected areas and examining over 600 written statements submitted by victims of the floods. The report presents a schedule of interim conclusions, many of which relate to local authorities. These interim conclusions shaped the National approach to flood management and can be accessed via the Defra website. Pitt s final report was released in June 2008 and contains detailed findings, conclusions and 92 recommendations for action, covering all aspects of strategic and local flood risk management. These interim conclusions are intended to shape the National approach to flood management and can be accessed via the Defra website. Some of the recommendations which are relevant to this SFRA and the role of local authorities in future local flood risk management include; Recommendation 11 Building Regulations should be revised to ensure that all new or refurbished development in high flood risk areas are flood resistant or resilient. Recommendation 14 Local Authorities should lead on the management of local flood risk, with support of the relevant organisations. Recommendation 15 Local Authorities should positively tackle local problems of flooding working with all relevant parties, establishing ownership and legal responsibility. Recommendation 16 Local Authorities should collate and map the main flood risk management and drainage assets (over and underground), including a record of their ownership and condition. Recommendation 17 All relevant organisations should have a duty to share information and cooperate with local authorities and the Environment Agency to facilitate the management of flood risk. Recommendation 18 Local Surface Water Management Plans, as set out under PPS25 and coordinated by local authorities, should provide the basis for managing all local flood risk. Recommendation 19 Local Authorities should assess and, if appropriate, enhance their technical capabilities to deliver a wide range of responsibilities in relation to local flood risk management. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 8

19 Recommendation 20 The Government should resolve the issue of which organisations should be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems. Recommendation 52 In the short term, the Government and infrastructure operators should work together to build a level of resilience in critical infrastructure assets that ensures continuity during worst case flood event. Recommendation 57 The Government should provide Local Resilience Forums with the inundation maps for both large and small reservoirs to enable them to assess risks and plan for contingency, warning and evacuation. Pitt s findings, conclusions and recommendations for action are challenging but will be extremely important in guiding local authorities and other operating authorities in their consideration of future flood risk management activities, including land use planning. They have also been a key driver in shaping the content of the draft Flood and Water Management Bill. 2.3 National Planning Policy This SFRA has been prepared in a period during which planning authorities have been implementing the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and accompanying planning guidance, including PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS12 Local Development Frameworks. This affected all tiers of the planning system and has necessitated major changes at both the regional and local level which will impact on the way in which planned development is approached in the regional strategy and delivered locally PPS25 Development and Flood Risk In December 2006, the Government published PPS25: Development and Flood Risk. The aim of PPS25 is to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. The key planning objectives are that Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should prepare and implement planning strategies that help to deliver sustainable development by: Identifying land at risk and the degree of risk of flooding from river, sea and other sources in their areas; Preparing Regional or Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (RFRAs / SFRAs) as appropriate, as a freestanding assessment that contributes to the Sustainability Appraisal of their plans; Framing policies for the location of development which avoid flood risk to people and property where possible, and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change; Only permitting development in areas of flood risk when there are no suitable alternative sites in areas of lower flood risk and the benefits of the development outweigh the risks from flooding; Safeguarding land from development that is required for current and future flood management e.g. conveyance and storage of flood water, and flood defences; Reducing flood risk to and from new development through location, layout and design, incorporating sustainable drainage systems (SUDS); 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 9

20 Using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the cause and impacts of flooding e.g. surface water management plans; making the most of the benefits of green infrastructure for flood storage, conveyance and SUDS; re-creating functional floodplain; and setting back defences; Working effectively with the Environment Agency, other operating authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that best use is made of their expertise and information so that plans are effective and decisions on planning applications can be delivered expeditiously; and Ensuring spatial planning supports flood risk management policies and plans, River Basin Management Plans and emergency planning. In addition to setting out the roles and responsibilities for LPAs and RPBs, PPS25 identifies that landowners also have a primary responsibility for safeguarding their land and other property against natural hazards such as flooding. Those promoting sites for development are also responsible for: Demonstrating that is consistent with PPS25 and Local Development Documents (LDDs); Providing a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) demonstrating whether the proposed development: is likely to be affected by current or future flooding; satisfies the LPA that the development is safe; and identifies management and mitigation measures. PPS25 also introduces an amendment to Article 10 of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Order) 1995 which makes the Environment Agency a Statutory Consultee on all applications for development in flood risk areas, and those within 20m of a Main River. The Direction also introduces the requirement for LPAs to notify the Secretary of State where they are minded to approve a planning application contrary to a sustained objection by the Environment Agency. The introduction of PPS25 enables local authorities to make a direction under Article 4 of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order This will enable Local Authorities to remove permitted development rights where those rights threaten to have a direct, significant and adverse effect on a flood risk area, or its flood defences and their access, or the permeability and management of surface water, or flood risk to occupants PPS25 Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide The Practice Guide to PPS25 was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) in June It provides advice on the practical implementation of PPS25 policy and reflects extensive discussion with local authorities, the Environment Agency and other key stakeholders and practitioners. The guide provides further guidance on the preparation of SFRA s and FRA s, the Sequential and Exception Test, outlines potential mitigation measures e.g. SUDS and risk management techniques. Local Authority planners and developers are advised to refer to and use PPS25 and the practice guide in conjunction with the further advice contained within this report Other Planning Policy Statements PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development published in February 2005 sets out the overarching planning policies for the delivery of sustainable development across the planning system and sets the tone for other planning policy statements. PPS1 explicitly states that development plan policies should take account of flooding, including flood risk. It proposes that new development in areas at risk from flooding should be avoided. Planning authorities are also advised to ensure that developments are sustainable, durable and adaptable including taking into account natural hazards such as flooding. PPS1 also places an emphasis on spatial planning in contrast to the more rigid land use planning approach which it supersedes. Planning authorities will still produce site-specific allocations and a proposals map as LDDs, but their Core Strategy will be more strategic 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 10

21 and visionary in content and will take into account the desirability of achieving integrated and mixed use development and will consider a broader range of community needs than in the past. With regard to flood risk, it will be important for the Core Strategies and accompanying Supplementary Planning Documents to recognise the contribution that nonstructural measures can make to flood management. Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change, a supplement to PPS1, published in December 2007, sets out how the Government expects the planning system to address climate change. It explains that there is a compelling scientific consensus that human activity is changing the world s climate. The evidence that climate change is happening, and that man-made emissions are its main cause, is strong. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights that we are already experiencing the effects of climate change and if these changes deepen and intensify, as they are predicted to do without the right responses locally and globally, we will see even more extreme impacts. One of the predicted impacts of climate change is more intense periods of rainfall and consequent flooding. The PPS1 supplement requires Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks to shape sustainable communities that are resilient to such effects. A key objective of the planning system being to secure new development and shape places that minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change in ways that are consistent with social cohesion and inclusion. Accordingly, new development should be planned to minimise future vulnerability in a changing climate. The SFRA incorporating Sequential and Exception Test information is essential in meeting the objectives of the PPS1 supplement Planning and Climate Change. Whilst not directly relevant to the development of an SFRA, it is important to recognise that the exercise takes place within the context of other planning policy guidance and statements, some of which require sequential testing of site allocations and development proposals. PPS3 (Housing), emerging PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Development) and PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres) are intrinsic within the planning process and, therefore, an understanding of the constraints faced as a result of this additional policy guidance is required. 2.4 Regional Policy Drivers Regional Spatial Strategy The Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1) was published in November In September 2004, following the implementation of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Regional Planning Guidance was converted to the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in line with Governmental reforms. The converted RSS was prepared as a draft revision called VIEW: Shaping the North East, which was issued for consultation in December 2004 and published in August After two rounds of consultation periods the North East RSS was updated and published in July It now outlines the current adopted planning strategy for the period to The published RSS, when compared to the previous, demonstrates an increased emphasis and heightened awareness of flood risk under Policy 35. It states that: Strategies, plans and programmes should adopt a strategic, integrated, sustainable and proactive approach to catchment management to reduce flood risk within the Region, managing the risk from: Tidal effects around estuaries and along the coast including the implications of the latest Government predictions for sea level rise; Fluvial flooding along river corridors and other significant watercourses resulting from catchments within and beyond the Region and other sources of flooding; and Flooding resulting from surface water runoff and capacity constraints in surface water drainage systems. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 11

22 In developing Local Development Frameworks and considering planning proposals, a sequential risk-based approach to development and flooding should be adopted as set out in PPS25. This approach must be informed by Strategic Flood Risk Assessments prepared by planning authorities in liaison with the Environment Agency to inform the application of the Sequential Test and, if necessary, the Exception Test, in development allocations in their LDDs and consideration of planning proposals Northumbria River Basin Management Plan In accordance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD), implemented in December 2000, a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) must be produced for each of the 11 River Basin Districts by The Environment Agency state that: RBMPs will have a number of functions, but are primarily intended: To establish a strategic plan for the long term management of the River Basin District. To set out objectives for waterbodies and in broad terms what measures are planned to meet these objectives Act as the main reporting mechanism to the European Commission The Northumbria River Basin District is one of only two that cross the England-Scotland border. The Environment Agency recognise that cross-board RBDs can, Raise issues for the relationship between those responsible for the delivery of the WFD's objectives, the devolved governments, local authorities and government agencies 4 " The North East RSS observes that, To ensure the planning system can positively facilitate the delivery of the Directive s objectives and the River Basin Management Plan can take account of local priorities, frequent dialogue between the Environment Agency and local planning authorities at all stages in the planning cycle is essential 5 " North East Regional Flood Risk Appraisal JBA Consulting were commissioned by the North East Assembly (NEA) in conjunction with One Northeast to undertake a scoping study for the RFRA. The scoping study examines the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments undertaken across the North East region, and considers how these could form the basis for a strategic flood risk appraisal. By using the subareas defined in the RSS, the study provides a more holistic view of flood risk, and therefore 3 Communities and Local Governments (2008) The North East England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to The Environment Agency (2005) Briefing Note: Cross-border River Basin Districts and the Water Framework Directive 5 Communities and Local Governments (2008) The North East England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 12

23 planning implications at a sub-area level. The appraisal is displayed through maps, which have been structured: Regionally through economic indicators, At city regions via a range of flood risk indicators presented at Growth Point Level; and At Growth Areas using a broad range of combined flood risk indicators. The scoping report and associated maps can be found on the Association of North East Council website. The primary objective of a Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) is to provide an appraisal of strategically significant flood risk issues in a region in order to guide strategic planning decisions. The RFRA assists decisions on key land use factors such as need for employment, inward investment, re-generation, provision of housing and open/green space, major road and other infrastructure development provision to deliver sustainable growth whilst taking full account of flood risks, now and in the future. The appraisal also drives and informs policy development and setting in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the strategic management of flood risk, and in turn assists local authority planners in their consideration and implementation of land use policies in Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) and Local Development Documents (LDDs). In addition, it provides important strategic flood risk input to the Regional Sustainability Appraisal (RSA) and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The outputs of the RFRA help to identify where there may be a need for further flood risk assessment work to be undertaken, particularly in respect of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) and where strategically significant developments are proposed in areas currently at risk of flooding. Even where SFRAs already exist, the RFRA helps to place specific local authority flood risks into a regional context, showing the variation of risk and the interdependency between neighbouring authorities and river sub-catchments. Flooding does not respect local authority administrative boundaries and the RFRA provides a mechanism to help local authorities work better together, and with key stakeholders, to consider, communicate and share common or similar flood risk management policy objectives, opportunities and constraints Climate Change Action Plan for the North East And the Weather Today is...climate Change in the North East was published in 2002 based on the UKCIP 2002 scenarios. This was followed by the North East Climate Change Adaption Study in The Climate Change Action Plan for North East England identifies what is needed to be done to tackle climate change in North East England. It shows how all sectors have the opportunity to actively engage with this work, take direct action and influence how the plan is developed. Climate change action plans already exist or are being developed at a sub-regional and local level. The action plan for North East England provides a regional framework that coordinates and facilitates action at a regional level, incorporating both adaptation and mitigation measures, ensuring that a regional evidence base is developed to inform those local action plans. Climate change impacts continue to provide an increasing challenge to sustainable flood risk management for government and operating authorities. The severe flooding 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 13

24 experienced across the country in recent years and in particular, during the summer 2007 were, in the words of Sir Michael Pitt, a wake up call. Flood risk related climate change issues are extremely important to the future management of flood risk in the UK and beyond. These issues need to be taken seriously and mitigation and adaptation measures planned and adopted by Regional and Local Authorities. Principle adverse flood risk effects of climate change threatening people and property include: More frequent and intense rainfall events causing flash flooding to low lying areas; More and faster surface water runoff and overland flows causing sewers, drains, rivers and streams to overflow; Increased sea level rise, storminess and frequency of storm surges threatening low lying coastal communities; and Rising groundwater levels causing increased spring source activity and higher spring flows increasing the risk of flooding. If not addressed, these effects are likely to have a significant impact on many communities and in particular new developments in areas at high risk of flooding. Recent climate change trends are contained within a UK Climate Impacts Programme document: The Climate of the United Kingdom and Recent Trends published in December 2007 and is available on their website. The next UKCIP09 report is planned for launch in late In recognition of the Governments increasing concerns about the effects of climate change on flood risk management, Defra produced a Supplementary Note to Operating Authorities Climate Change Impacts in October 2006 in which they updated the climate change policy for flood and coastal management. This document is available on the Defra website. In conjunction with Defra, CLG then provided the recommended climate change contingency allowances for sea level rise and precautionary sensitivity ranges for peak rainfall intensities and peak river flows etc. in Annex B of PPS25. These figures should be used in all aspects of flood risk management including the consideration of new developments and changes of land use in flood risk areas. 2.5 Environment Agency Policy Tees Catchment Flood Management Plan The Tees CFMP was published in December It is a high-level policy document covering the whole of the River Tees catchment but excludes the main coastal areas (as these are adequately dealt with by the Shoreline Management Plan process). The CFMP is investigating what factors influence flood risk at the catchment scale and will assess the impacts that climate change, land use change and urbanisation may have on flood risk over the next 50 to 100 years. The CFMP has established a policy framework for flood risk management across the catchment through which future flood defence management strategies and programmes will be formulated. Recognition of these strategic plans is very important to the LPA when planning for the future and considering long-term land use options for regeneration, inward investment and growth. The CFMPs help to prioritise activities, focus resources where there is greatest need and determine what flood risk management responses need to be considered further (and which responses will not be effective). The responses to flood risk will be broader than 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 14

25 those traditionally used for flood defence to reflect the full range of management options available. CFMPs support an integrated approach to spatial planning and river basin management, in line with the Water Framework Directive and the EU Directive on the assessment and management of flood risk; they cover all geographical areas in England and Wales and are crucial in the planning of sustainable flood risk management. The Tees CFMP has been split into eighteen 'policy units'. Each of these policy units has been given a flood risk management policy. The policy units and policies are shown in Figure 2. The policy units that cover Hartlepool BC include Hartlepool (T15), Tees Mouth and Ingleby Barwick (T4), Greatham Beck (T14), Lustrum Beck (T18) (these are identified in Figure 2 below). There are a number of sustainable flood risk management policies relating to the areas within Hartlepool SFRA. These include the following CFMP Policies: Policy 3: Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting flood risk will increase from this baseline); and Policy 5: Take further action to reduce flood risk The policies chosen should be taken into account for future development planning as they indicate how the Environment Agency intend to manage flood risk over the next 50 to 100 years. It may be that locations which are currently at a low level of flood risk may be at a greater risk in the future. Table 1 below sets out the Policy Units covering the Hartlepool SFRA area and policy chosen for the area. Table 1- Relevant Catchment Flood Management Plan Policies Policy units Notes Policy option Hartlepool (T15) Tees Mouth and Ingleby Barwick (T11) Greatham Beck (T14) Lustrum Beck (T18) The flood risk data for this area has informed the policy choice to take further action to reduce risk in Hartlepool. This includes all sources of flooding apart from tidal, which is covered in the SMP. Given the multiple sources of flooding within this policy unit, the Environment Agency describes the need for a detailed hydrological review for the watercourses and an investigation of the impact of tidal levels on fluvial flooding. This will assist in determining whether investment to increase the SoP would be appropriate and identify where it is required. Reductions in flood risk would benefit existing and future development. There are multiple sources of flood risk in this policy unit. The Environment Agency suggests a package of measures are needed to reduce current and future flood risk. The regional development plans indicate that there is development pressure within this area. Therefore, the number of properties at risk of flooding in the future is likely to increase. This could also exacerbate current surface water flooding problems. Any increases in the SoP in this area would benefit existing and future development. The Greatham Beck policy unit includes the southwest suburbs of Hartlepool. Based on the current and predicted future level of flood risk, the Environment Agency believes that risks are currently managed appropriately. The EA will continue with their level of service in relation to maintenance of the channel and defences. However, this policy indicates that the Environment Agency will not be actively reducing flood risk in the Greatham Beck policy unit over the next 50 to 100 years. This should be taken into account when considering spatial planning in this area. The policy chosen here is about reducing the flood risk in areas where the existing flood risk is too high. The Environment Agency describes the need to take action in the short and long term to reduce this level of risk. A package of measures is needed. A scheme outlined in the Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy is being developed to address fluvial flooding in the middle and upper reaches of the Lustrum Beck. In the longer term, to prevent the problems from increasing, further investigations are needed to determine the interaction between the Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy tidal assessment and the fluvial studies to identify the best overall approach. Additional work is needed on finding suitable sites for floodplain storage s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 15

26 Figure 2 - Tees Catchment Flood Management Plan Policy Units 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 16

27 2.6 North East Coastal Authorities Group Shoreline Management Plan 2 Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) cover the whole of the coastline in the UK and some of them extent through the tidal estuaries. In simplistic terms, SMPs cover coastal and tidal flooding while CFMPs cover all other sources of flooding River Tyne to Flamborough Head Shoreline Management Plan 2 Policies SMPs exist to promote prudent management of the coastline. The overall aim of the SMP is to set out a plan for a 100-year period indicating how our coastline should be managed, taking into account the wider implications on the neighbouring coastline and the environment. It provides a large-scale assessment of the risks associated with coastal processes and presents a policy framework to reduce these risks to people and the developed, historic and natural environment in a sustainable manner. The River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 covers an area of coastline extending from the Tyne to Flamborough Head, a distance of approximately 150km. This coastline between the River Tyne and Flamborough Head was previously divided into three separate SMP s dating from Due to changing pressures, and the ever-evolving coastline it was necessary to review the SMP s at regular intervals. This section of coast has now been reviewed as one SMP (River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2) to enable a broader scale appreciation of the coastal processes to be achieved and to ensure continuous and coherent management policies result. The River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 is split into policy units (similar to the CFMP policy units). These represent sections of the coastline for which a certain coastal defence management policy has been defined. These are grouped into Management Areas for management purposes. Table 2 outlines the Management Areas (MA) covering the Hartlepool SFRA area, and the relevant policies chosen for the area. The information contained within Table 2 should be considered for future development purposes. The SMP2 policy will have implications on whether a coastal regeneration area will be sustainable in the long-term. Table 2 - Relevant Shoreline Management Plan 2 polices Management Area Policy from Present Day: Policy Medium - Term Policy Long - Term Damages and benefits under the preferred plan MA11 (Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Breakwater) To allow natural development of the coast between Blackhall Rocks and Hart Warren. To provide key points protection to areas of North Sands within a general master plan for future development. To hold the line along Hartlepool Headland. To allow natural development of the coast between Blackhall Rocks and Hart Warren. To establish defence width through control to areas of North Sands as erosion takes place. To hold the line along to Hartlepool Headland. To allow natural development of the coast between Blackhall Rocks and Hart Warren. To allow natural retreat within the imposed control to North Sands. To hold the line to Hartlepool Headlands. Retreat of coastline at Crimdon Park with progressive loss of sections of caravan park and car parking; Potential loss of areas of the Golf Club; Maintain area for development to North Sands; Maintain management to LNR and Cemetery; Maintain defence to urban area of Hartlepool Headland; and Maintain Headland promenade and open areas. MA12 (Heugh Breakwater to Little Scar) Hold the line to the whole Hartlepool Bay frontage. Develop detailed plans with respect to defence to Middleton Beach in association with development Hold the whole Hartlepool bay frontage. Develop detailed plans with respect to the Heugh Breakwater. Develop defence Hold the line to the whole Hartlepool bay frontage. Develop detailed plans with respect to Heugh Breakwater. Develop defence Maintain the defence of Hartlepool; and Increased exposure due to reduction in length of the Heugh Breakwater. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 17

28 Table 2 - Relevant Shoreline Management Plan 2 polices plans. to Middleton Beach in association with development plans. to Middleton beach in association with development plans. MA13 (Little Scar to Coatham Sands) Hold the line to Seaton Carew, while allowing natural roll back of the Seaton Sands Dunes and the North Gare Dunes. Allow the natural development of the Bran sands and Coatham Dunes, within the strategic control of maintaining the South Gare. As per present day, but to consider retreat of the Seaton Carew sea front. Detailed consideration of the flood risk to the area to the south and North Gare Breakwater. Land use management plans for the area behind Seaton Dunes. As above but ultimately, maintain defence to Seaton Carew. Management Area 11 - Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Breakwater Loss to Gold Course (not included in damages); and Potential loss to existing sea front at Seaton Carew. The north of MA11 is a policy for allowing natural development of coastal processes and to the south (at the Hartlepool Headwater) is a policy for holding the line. Between these areas is a provisional policy, which relies on development of a coastal masterplan. The provisional policy is for initially establishing a degree of control on coastal processes with a longer-term policy of allowing the coast to develop in a controlled manner (see Table 2). Management Area 12 - Heugh Breakwater to Little Scar The overall management intent for the area of MA12 is to maintain the general defence of the bay. Consideration needs to be given to minimising the need for additional defences along Block Sands in deciding to what degree the length of Heugh Breakwater needs to be maintained. Consideration needs to be given to how the proposed development around Victoria Harbour, in particular the area of Middleton Beach, can be used to allow development of a more sustainable defence line. The decline in use of the marina would have an impact on the development policy for the area to the north and, therefore, on the decisions and assumptions being made in this development plan as to the area behind the Middleton Beach. In assessing the defence of the Hartlepool frontage, the Victoria Harbour master plan indicates new development of the area behind Middleton Beach. Some of the problems can be alleviated to a degree if development was set back from the current line of defence. As defences in this area require attention, a planning decision to limit development close to the defence line would allow increased width of foreshore with the potential to sustainability reduce future defence commitment. The SMP2 approach is to allow the failure of the southern seaward section. This has shown to increase exposure to the area to the North Pier, Middleton Beach, Victoria Harbour and the Block Sands. In the case if the two former areas, this has implications as to the improvement works proposed to either the full extent or inner section of the North Pier, with the probable need to consider further of the plan shape of any rock works (planned in the next five years). The SMP2 policy through both the short, medium and longer term would be for holding the line, with consideration given to retreating the line of defence at Middleton (see Table 2). The consequences of reducing the effective length of the Heugh Breakwater need to be fed into planning decisions. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 18

29 Management Area 13 - Little Scar to Coatham Sands The overall management intent for the area of MA13 is described as: 'Maintaining the Gare Breakwater - maintains overall control of the frontage to north and east. Within this, there would be a retreat of the Seaton Dunes and an anticipated reduction in beach levels in front of Seaton Carew'. This needs to be managed so that either when major works are required to the Seaton Carew defences or if the seafront is re-developed, consideration needs to be given to realigning the hard line of defences. Association with this planning policy needs to be estimated which would not constrain future realignment of the defences Shoreline Management Plan 2 Relevant Actions The action plan as set out by the SMP2 indentifies three general areas: North Hartlepool, Hartlepool Bay and Seaton Carew. Table 3 outlines the action plan recommended for Hartlepool Borough Council. Table 3 - Shoreline Management Plan 2 Action Plan for Hartlepool Borough Council By when Action Management Area Responsibility Cost k On going Scheme Development for Headland. Detailed appraisal for improving defences (High economic consequence. Impact on designated areas. Maintaining heritage and amenity). MA 11 Hartlepool BC Development strategy for area of North Sands. Develop an integrated approach to defence of the cemetery frontage. Identify potential erosion risk contribution (potential development in risk area. Opportunity for enhancement of designated area and local biodiversity. Ensure integration with redevelopment. Maintain heritage and amenity value). MA 11 Co-ordinated by Hartlepool BC Town walls. Detailed scheme appraisal report (economic value and protection of property. Potential opportunity for biodiversity. Important heritage issues. Maintain navigation). MA 12 Private / Coordinated by Hartlepool BC Management strategy for Crimdon Valley (potential for biodiversity. Resolve local land use together with access and environmental enhancement). MA 11 Co-ordinated by Hartlepool BCl / Easington DC / Durham Heritage Coast Middleton Beach. Advise on defence (ensure integration with redevelopment to provide sustainable defence). MA 12 Co-ordinated by Hartlepool BC Strategy for Seaton Carew, review of condition and develop management strategy. MA 13 Hartlepool BC Marina. Detailed project appraisal report. Develop recommendations of strategy (high economic risk. Review sustainable development. Benefits associated with port. Possible biodiversity improvement. Interaction with Middleton development. MA 12 Private / Coordinated by Hartlepool BC Management plan for Seaton Dunes. Co-ordinated land use and dune management. MA 13 Co-ordinated by Hartlepool Borough Council / Environment Agency Heugh Breakwater. Review strategy to confirm policy for management (Impact on designated area. Use of frontage and potential additional defence requirement. Impact on navigation). MA 12 Private / Coordinated by Hartlepool BC s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 19

30 Table 3 - Shoreline Management Plan 2 Action Plan for Hartlepool Borough Council 2012 Review flood defence strategy to Teesmouth MA 13 Environment Agency. (Hartlepool Borough Council /RCBC 50 Schemes for North Hartlepool to be identified by strategies MA 11 Hartlepool BC 2009 Town walls MA 12 Hartlepool BC Management for Seaton Carew defences determined from strategy. Hartlepool BC 2.7 Local Planning Policy Following the introduction of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the way in which development plans are prepared is changing. With the aim of speeding up the simplifying plan preparation and improving community involvement. Development plans in their current form are to be abolished and replaced with a new development plan system, the Local Development Framework (LDF). It is intended that the new planning system will be more responsive and will involve more community involvement in the planning process The Hartlepool Local Plan In 1994, the first Borough-wide local plan for Hartlepool was adopted to guide and control development and the environment. It was one of the earliest local plans to be completed in the Northern Region following the introduction of the plan-led system under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act Hartlepool BC decided to undertake a full review of the 1994 plan because of the issues that have arisen and other developments that have occurred since the plan was first prepared. The new Hartlepool Local Plan (including mineral and waste policies) was adopted in 2006 and covers the period up until The plan has four main functions: As part of the development plan for Hartlepool, maps show the area of land (indicated in the structure plan) which are locations for major development or subject to specific policies; It provides guidance for the control of development by defining precise policies on land use and selected matters of design so that potential applicants for planning permission are aware of the planning requirements for the locality; It promotes and provides guidance for regeneration and other investment opportunities and enables other 'planning' bodies to phase service and market sites based on land availability. Furthermore, financial resources can then be targeted more effectively; and It brings local and detailed issues to the attention of the public so that there is full involvement in the discussion, and input in planning the future The Emerging Local Development Framework and the Local Development Scheme In accordance with the new planning system, work is underway to prepare a LDF and Local Development Documents (LDDs) for the Hartlepool Borough area, this will gradually replace the existing Hartlepool Local Plan. The LDDs comprises two types: 1. Development Plan Documents (DPDs) - form part of the statutory Development Plan for Hartlepool and sets out the spatial planning strategy and planning policies for the area; and 2. Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) which are non-statutory expanding on or providing further detail to polices in a DPD. They can take the form of design guides, development briefs, master plans or issue based documents. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 20

31 These together will set out the vision, objectives, spatial strategy and policies for planning and development in Hartlepool extending over a period of up to 15 years. They will seek to ensure that the future development of the Borough is planned in a sustainable manner. Hartlepool BC's Local Development Scheme sets out the programme for the completion of the LDDs. The first LDD to be published was the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). This sets out how the Council intends to involve the community, including voluntary and community groups, local residents, businesses, landowners, statutory agencies and others with an interest, in the new planning system. The Affordable Housing DPD is available and the economic viability assessment is underway. A Transport Assessments and Travel Plans SPD along with an accompanying Sustainability Appraisal have also been prepared. Hartlepool has been nominated by EDF Energy as a potential site for a new nuclear power station. In May 2009, Hartlepool BC submitted a formal response to the Department of Energy & Climate Change agreeing that the nomination of a site for a new nuclear power station at Hartlepool merits further investigation by the Government Hartlepool Core Strategy Development Planning Document The Core Strategy will be the key document in the new Hartlepool LDF. It intends to set out the longer-term spatial vision for Hartlepool and the strategic policies that will deliver that vision for Hartlepool. In particular, it will interpret the priorities of the Community Strategy into spatial planning objectives and policies. Preliminary work on gathering of a sound evidence base for the strategy is underway. The Preferred Options (including Draft Policies) and the sustainability report is due for completion at the end of From January to March 2010, consultation will begin of the Preferred Options. The SFRA will influence the Preferred Options with regards to flood risk Hartlepool Housing Allocations Development Planning Document The Hartlepool Housing DPD will identify housing sites proposed for development to meet the strategic housing requirements set out in the RSS The production of this document commenced in January The Preferred Options (including Draft Policies) and the sustainability report will commence in March Hartlepool Growth Point Funding Announced in December 2005, the Growth Points initiative is designed to provide support to local communities who wish to pursue large scale and sustainable growth, including new housing, through a partnership with central government. Central government invited local authorities to submit strategic growth proposals which were sustainable, acceptable environmentally and realistic in terms of infrastructure, to be assed by central government and its agencies. Growth Point status is not a statutory designation but a relationship between central government and local partners that is built on four principles: 1. Early delivery of housing as part of the growth plans; 2. Supporting local partners to achieve sustainable growth; 3. Working with local partners to ensure that infrastructure and service provision keep pace with growth; and 4. Ensuring effective delivery. Growth Point status requires the Tees Valley to increase its housing growth by 20 per cent above the approved Regional Spatial Strategy target by 2016/17. It is an accelerated development programme, which identifies key infrastructure investment necessary to speed up the development of the city region. Nationally, for the period up to 2011, 200m is available to share between two 'Growth Areas', 29 round 1 Growth Points, the 20 round two Growth Points and any successful Eco Towns. Hartlepool, have been awarded Growth Point status, and key development sites are currently being decided. The announcement on successful schemes and the subsequent allocation of funding is due to commence shortly. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 21

32 Growth Point status brings with it two separate sources of funding: the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) and the Growth Fund. CIF is joint funded by the Communities and Local Government (CLG) and Department for Transport and is intended to fund small to medium scale transport schemes, which are vital for unlocking housing development sites and improving the sustainability of major locations for growth. The Hartlepool package of schemes for CIF consists of the following: Tees Valley Network Management Strategy Phase 1; and A19 / A689 / A1185 Junction and Corridor Improvements 2.8 Summary In accommodating future development in Hartlepool, there is a range of planning policies to consider and balance on a national, regional and local level. Future development needs have been broadly specified in regional plans and are being refined on a local level in the emerging LDF. PPS25 and its Practice Guide provides the overarching national guidance with respect to development and flood risk, emphasising the need to effectively manage flood risk within the planning system, rather than relying on reactive solutions to flooding. This includes a responsibility for LPAs to reduce flood risk to people and property as a result of new development. It also identifies the preparation of SFRAs as a key process in the understanding and management of flood risk for planning purposes. It is widely recognised that flood risk is one of a whole raft of policy constraints placed upon the local planning system. Development must facilitate the socio-economic needs of a community, and spatially must sit within an existing framework of landscape and infrastructure. For this reason, a balance must be sought between development need and the risk it may pose upon existing and future residents of the area as a result of flooding. The aim of this SFRA is to provide a better understanding of flood risk in Hartlepool that can feed into the emerging LDF and enable informed and balanced planning decisions to be made. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 22

33 3 Understanding Flood Risk 3.1 Introduction Flooding is a natural process and can happen at any time in a wide variety of locations. It constitutes a temporary covering of land not normally covered by water and presents a risk when people, human and environmental assets are present in the area which floods. Assets at risk from flooding can include housing, transport and public service infrastructure, commercial and industrial enterprises, agricultural land and the environmental and cultural heritage. Climate change predictions are that flood risk will increase due to more frequent severe storms bringing higher intensity rainfall and increasing run-off from land and buildings. This will cause rivers and streams to experience higher than normal flood flows and levels, and sewers and drains to surcharge more frequently than at present. The focus of activity in meeting these challenges will in future be on flood risk management as opposed to simply providing flood defences. It is now widely recognised that whilst we cannot always prevent flooding occurring we can manage the risks of it happening and reduce the consequences when flooding does happen. All operating authorities (Environment Agency, Local Authorities, Internal Drainage Boards), should embrace effective flood risk management issues and actions, and aim to reduce flood risks through a variety of measures including: Ensuring planning activities locate vulnerable land uses away from high flood risk areas; Providing flood warning and emergency planning activities in flood risk areas; Generally raising awareness of flood risks amongst vulnerable communities; Constructing and maintaining appropriately designed surface water sewers and culverts; Using temporary and demountable flood defences and various flood prevention systems to buildings where appropriate; Constructing new flood defences where they are sustainable, and improving and maintaining those already existing and; Constructing weirs, sluices and other flood flow control/management structures. Pro-active land use planning has a key role to play in flood risk management as it is one of the few activities that can result in the avoidance of flood risk as opposed to other activities that can only hope to reduce it. Effective flood risk management through the planning system is achieved through a hierarchy where: Avoidance of inappropriate development in high risk zones must take priority, before Substitution of lower vulnerability uses where avoidance is not possible is considered. Only if avoidance and substitution are not possible, Mitigation of the risks through a variety of techniques should be used. Flood risk assessment at all levels of planning and for all major developments is critical to inform decision making by planners and developers. 3.2 Sources of Flooding Flooding can occur from many different and combined sources and in many different ways. Different types and forms of flooding present a range of different risks and the flood hazards of speed of inundation, depth and duration of flooding can vary greatly. See Figure s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 23

34 With climate change, the frequency, pattern and severity of flooding are expected to change and become more damaging. Figure 3 - Flooding From All Sources Major causes of flooding include: Fluvial Flooding Flooding of watercourses is associated with the exceedance of channel capacity during higher flows. The process of flooding on watercourses depends on a number of characteristics associated with the catchment including; geographical location and variation in rainfall, steepness of the channel and surrounding floodplain and infiltration and rate of runoff associated with urban and rural catchments. Generally there are two main types of catchments; large and relatively flat or small and steep, the two giving two very different responses during large rainfall events. According to PPS25, in a large, relatively flat catchment, flood levels will rise slowly and natural floodplains may remain flooded for several days, acting as the natural regulator of the flow. In small, steep catchments, local intense rainfall can result in the rapid onset of deep and fast-flowing flooding with little warning. Such flash flooding, which may only last a few hours, can cause considerable damage and possible threat to life. The form of the floodplain, either natural or urbanised, can influence flooding along watercourses. The location of buildings and roads can significantly influence flood depths and velocities by altering flow directions and reducing the volume of storage within the floodplain. Critical structures such as bridge and culverts can also significantly reduce capacity creating pinch points within the floodplain. These structures are also vulnerable to blockage by natural debris within the channel or by fly tipping and waste Surface Water Flooding Flooding of land from surface water runoff is usually caused by intense rainfall that may only last a few hours and follows natural valley lines, creating flow paths along roads, through, and around developments and ponding in low spots, which often coincide with fluvial floodplains in low-lying areas. Hence, any area at risk of fluvial flooding will almost certainly be at risk of surface water flooding. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 24

35 Flooding in urban areas can also be attributed to sewers. Sewers are designed to a 1 in 30 year design standard and hence sewer flooding problems will often be associated with more frequent storm events, when sewers can become blocked or fail. In the larger events that are less frequent but have a higher consequence, surface water will exceed the sewer system and flow across the surface of the land, often following the same flow paths and ponding in the same areas as overland flows. Both Making Space for Water and Future Water recognise the importance of integrated urban drainage and the summer flooding of 2007 highlighted that surface water flooding can cause mass distress, damage and disruption. The Foresight Report (2004) estimated that 80,000 properties are at very high risk from surface water flooding (1 in 10 chance of occurring in any one year). The Environment Agency has recently produced a national Surface Water Flood Map, which identifies areas vulnerable to surface water flooding during an extreme rainfall event. This is valuable at providing an indication of the likelihood of surface water flooding, which is separated into areas at less, intermediate or high risk of surface water flooding. The maps typically show less vulnerable areas on tributaries and feeder streams to Main Rivers, where steeper sloping valleys exist and on the edge of the natural floodplain of Main Rivers, again where land levels tend to rise more steeply. The more vulnerable areas are predominantly in valley bottoms, in the Main River floodplain or on low lying greenfield land. From the maps it can be seen that there are many areas of land outside Flood Zone 3, that are vulnerable to surface water flooding and this needs to be considered as an integral part of the assessment. These maps are also extremely useful for identifying major flow routes due to the topography of the land, which may intercept critical infrastructure or travel through major developments. These maps are helpful in supporting the PPS25 Flood Zone Maps during the Sequential Test to assess the relative degree of vulnerability and where surface water flooding is sufficiently hazardous to jeopardise the principle of development. In particular, they show where vulnerable areas are and if development allocations are proposed in these vulnerable areas then appropriate avoidance, substitution and mitigation measures are needed. It must be noted that these maps were created at a national level. Where possible flow routes underneath structures (i.e. railway embankments, motorways, bridges etc.) have been including in the underlying topography, however there maybe instances where this has not been done. In addition, the capacity of the sewer system in removing a volume of the rainfall or infiltration rates of greenfield land has not been included. This is difficult at a national level, therefore it would be expected that the maps are slightly over estimating flood extents. Urban drainage modelling is a complex field, varying from simple topographic analysis, to routing of water over an elevation model (which is how the National Surface Water Flood Map has been produced), to network models of the sewer system linked to overland routing, to fully integrated river, sewer and overland models. The data, budget and time required increases with complexity. SFRAs require a strategic assessment of the likelihood of surface water flooding for which overland routing is suitable and appropriate Groundwater Flooding Groundwater flooding is caused by the emergence of water originating from underground. This can emerge from either point or diffuse locations. The occurrence of groundwater flooding is usually local and unlike flooding from rivers and the sea, does not generally pose a significant risk to life due to the slow rate at which the water level rises. However, groundwater flooding can cause significant damage to property, especial in urban areas. Groundwater flooding can persists over a number of weeks and poses a significant but localised issue that has attracted an increasing amount of public concern in recent years. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 25

36 In most cases groundwater flooding cannot be easily managed or lasting solutions engineered. However, there are various mitigation measures, which can reduce the impact on buildings. There are several mechanisms, which produce groundwater flooding 6, these include: Flooding resulting from prolonged rainfall - This mechanism for groundwater flooding is associated with, but not particular to, Chalk Aquifer areas. Flooding resulting from high in bank river levels - a particular problem in very large river basins with a large catchment, long flood durations and wide valleys with extensive alluvial deposits. Occurs in situations where the in bank river water level is at a higher elevation than the surround floodplain. Flooding resulting from artificial obstructions can exacerbate groundwater flooding within floodplains by placing artificial obstructions such as foundations into the ground: creating impermeable boundaries, damming groundwater up gradient and causing the groundwater levels to rise Flooding resulting From groundwater rebound - Groundwater levels in an area can be kept artificially depressed through groundwater abstraction; if these activities are stopped, groundwater will rise or rebound to their natural level. This rise in groundwater levels may cause once dry spring lines to start discharging groundwater. Flooding resulting from mine water rebound - When mine dewatering ceases, mine water levels rise as water enters the system through mine entries and permeable strata. As levels rise, mine water can start to issue from previously dry adits, shafts etc., as increased water levels allow water to flow from sections and subterranean ponds that were previously unconnected, forming new pathways and discharge points in the mine system Flooding from Drainage Systems Flooding from artificial drainage systems occurs when flow entering a system, such as an urban storm water drainage system, exceeds its discharge capacity, it becomes blocked or it cannot discharge due to a high water level in the receiving watercourse; Foul and separate surface water drainage systems are spread extensively across the urban areas with various interconnected systems discharging to treatment works and into local watercourses. Typically, foul systems will comprise a network of drainage sewers, often combing areas of separate and combined drainage, leading to sewage treatment works. The foul/combined systems will be inter-linked to a single local treatment works. There are a number of triggers relating to sewer flooding. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) provide a release from the drainage system into local watercourses or surface water systems during times of high flows. Surface water systems will typically collect surface water drainage separately from the foul sewerage. The major cause of flooding in the area is due to the connection of surface water drains to discharge into the combined sewer systems. Sewer capacity can also become an issue in large rainfall events causing the backing up of flood waters internally within properties or discharging through manholes. English and Welsh water companies are required to maintain a register of flooding incidences due to hydraulic capacity problems on the sewage network. This database identifies properties where flooding has occurred on a frequency of 1 in 5 years and 1 in 10 years known as DG5 and DG10 registers. A register for 1 in 20 years is also recorded which includes properties under investigation. Whilst this data can give an idea of those areas with limited drainage capacity, it must be acknowledged that it is a register of properties that have flooded due to the hydraulic 6 Environment Agency (2007) Making Space for Water: Groundwater Flooding Records Collation, Monitoring and Risk Assessment (Reference HA5). 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 26

37 inadequacies of the sewer systems, not properties at risk of flooding. Therefore, it has limiting usefulness in predicting future flooding. More useful indicators of risk are associated with the data generated using hydraulic network models such as InfoWorks, which should be investigated during a Surface Water Management Plan Flooding from Reservoirs and other Artificial Sources Reservoirs can act as a major source of flood risk, as experienced during the 2007 summer floods, where 18 reservoirs were affected across England. Reservoir flooding is therefore an important source of flood risk, which has been noted within the Pitt Review Recommendations and acknowledged by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 1million has been pledge to improve reservoir safety specifically to produce inundation mapping for all reservoirs falling under the Reservoirs Act (i.e. those with a capacity of over 25,000 cu metres). Whilst the likelihood of complete dam failure occurring is very low, the consequences of such an event can be devastating thereby presenting a risk of flooding which has to be considered. Reservoirs are classified on a consequence of failure basis outlined below in Table 4 and it is now suggested that a better risk-based approach to reservoir safety is needed, focusing on those reservoirs that pose the greatest risk to the public, even if they re not currently covered by the regulations. Table 4 - Reservoir Consequence Classification Dam Category A B C D Potential Consequence of Reservoir Failure At least 10 lives at risk and extensive property damage Fewer than 10 lives at risk or extensive property damage Negligible risk to human life but some property damage Negligible risk to human life and very limited property damage The Environment Agency is currently producing simplified inundation maps for all reservoirs under the Reservoirs Act as required by Recommendation 57 of the Pitt Review. Trial projects have been run in the North West to develop the specification for these maps and will be producing maps for all reservoirs under the Act during Currently the Water Act 2003, which amended the Reservoirs Act 1975, requires all reservoir undertakers to prepare Flood Plans for those reservoirs where the dam failure could put people s lives at risk or lead to major damage. These plans are expected to become a legal requirement in spring Defra is currently funding a project to produce a Guide to Emergency Planning for UK Reservoirs, which will ultimately use the Flood Plans. The reservoir Flood Plans will include: An inundation analysis to identify the extent and severity of flooding which could result from an uncontrolled release of water (i.e. breaching or failure). An on-site plan setting out what the undertaker would do in an emergency to try and to contain and limit the effects of the incident, and A communications plan with external organisations, mainly the emergency services. Until the new Water and Floods Bill is implemented it is unclear how reservoir safety, flood risk from breach and planning will be dealt with. In the meantime any allocations or applications for development immediately downstream of a reservoir should be considered carefully in liaison with the Environment Agency. It should be noted that the hazard is well managed through effective legislation and it is unlikely that the impact zone downstream of a reservoir would not allow permitted development, or require mitigation measures. It is likely it would remain an emergency planning issue. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 27

38 3.2.6 Defences Failure The condition of existing flood defences is an important consideration for local authority planners when allocating new development. PPS25 considers that defended areas (i.e. those areas that are protected to some degree against flooding by the presence of a formalised flood defence) are still at risk of flooding, and therefore sites within these areas must be assessed with respect to the adequacy of the defences. The condition of existing defences is provided in the form of a rating (1 to 5), and is a reflection of any signs of obvious structural problems. The condition rating is determined based on visual inspection, focussing on obvious signs of structural defect (e.g. slippage, cracking, poor maintenance), designed to inform the maintenance programme. A summary of the NFCDD condition rating allocations is shown in Table 5 below. Table 5- NFCDD Condition Ratings for Flood Defences Condition Rating Condition Condition Description 1 Very Good Fully serviceable. 2 Good Minor defects. 3 Fair Some cause for concern. Requires careful monitoring. 4 Poor Structurally unsound now or in the future. 5 Very Poor Completely failed and derelict. The condition of existing flood defences and whether they will continue to be maintained and/or improved in the future, is an issue than needs to be considered as part of the risk based sequential approach and in the light of this, whether proposed land allocations are appropriate and sustainable. In addition, detailed FRAs will need to explore the condition of defences thoroughly, especially where these defences are informal and contain a wide variation of condition grades. If the condition of defences are low they are open to failure or if they are not provided the required standard of protection could potentially be overtopped during lower probability events. Flood risk associated with defence infrastructure is residual; however, the risks can be significant due to their sudden onset and velocities reached by flood waters Overview Flooding in urban areas can come from a variety of sources and when flooding occurs it is often not clear where the water has come from. The draft Floods and Water Management Bill defines local flood risk, for which local authorities will have a local leadership role, as the risk of flooding from ordinary watercourses (smaller watercourses that are not under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency), surface water and groundwater. Prior to the major flood events in summer 2007, non Main River flooding was based on anecdotal evidence or described with Critical Ordinary Watercourse (COW) investigations undertaken by the Environment Agency. Little data could be abstracted from the water companies on sensitive drainage catchments where runoff impacts of new development could be significant on combined sewer systems. However, a significant proportion of recent flood insurance claims are due to flooding from non main river sources, so this issue will become larger with a more energised climate. Historically the adopted approach in many SFRAs has been not to consider other sources of flooding as a spatial or strategic issue. Through good design and attenuation of drainage inputs to sensitive watercourses, mitigation was the accepted way forward. Summer 2007 provided a stark reminder that the significance of capacity exceedance of artificial and natural drainage systems can be severe for many communities. Therefore, a clear example was provided that flooding from all sources should be scoped into a SFRA, and that new methods of rapid screening of these risks are required. On the back of the 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 28

39 Pitt review, the Environment Agency has prepared a national map showing areas vulnerable to surface water flooding. This was developed by JBA from research for the Making Space for Water programme and has been used within this SFRA. Increases in flooding impacting on people and property, due to development can be caused: Upstream by restricting the capacity and conveyance function of the watercourse and floodplain system; Downstream by decreasing the volume available for flood storage on the floodplain, altering flow routes on the floodplain or by changes to the channel which can increase the flow discharged to downstream locations; and By increasing run-off from reduced permeability surfaces, such as roads, roofs and car parks. 3.3 Flooding Likelihood & Consequence Flood risk is generally accepted to be a combination of the likelihood of flooding and the potential consequences arising. It is assessed using the source pathway receptor model as shown in Figure 4. This is a standard environmental risk model common to many hazards and should be starting point of any flood-risk assessment. However, it should be remembered that flood risk can occur from many different sources and pathways and not simply those shown in the simple form below. Figure 4 - Source Pathway Receptor Model The principal sources are rainfall or higher than normal sea levels, the principal pathways are rivers, drains, sewers, overland flow and river and coastal floodplains and their defence assets and the receptors can include people, their property and the environment. All three elements must be present for flood risk to arise. Mitigation measures have little or no effect on sources of flooding but they can block or impede pathways or remove receptors. The planning process is primarily concerned with the location of receptors, taking appropriate account of potential sources and pathways that might put those receptors at risk. It is important to define the components of flood risk in order to apply this guidance in a consistent manner. Flood risk is a combination of the likelihood of flooding and the potential consequences arising Likelihood Likelihood of flooding is normally expressed as the percentage probability based on the average frequency measured or extrapolated from records over a large number of years. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 29

40 A 1% probability indicates the flood level that is expected to be exceeded on average once in 100 years, i.e. it has a 1 in 100 chance of occurring in any one year. Considered over the lifetime of development, such an apparently low frequency or rare flood has a significant probability of occurring. For example a 1% flood has a 22% (1 in 5) chance of occurring at least once in a 25-year period (the period of a typical residential mortgage) and a 53% (1 in 2) chance of occurring in a 75-year period (a typical human lifetime) Consequence Consequences of flooding depend on the hazards caused by flooding (depth of water, speed of flow, rate of onset, duration, wave-action effects, water quality) and the vulnerability of receptors (type of development, nature, e.g. age-structure, of the population, presence and reliability of mitigation measures etc). Flood risk is then normally expressed in terms of the following relationship: Flood risk = Probability of flooding x Consequences of flooding 3.4 Flooding Impact on Property, People & the Environment Flood impacts maybe direct or indirect, immediate or long term and may affect households and communities, individuals as well as the environment, infrastructure and economy of an area Flooding Impact on People Flooding has a wide range of social impacts, which may be difficult to delineate as they are interconnected, cumulative and often not quantifiable. In small urban or steep upland catchments which have a very rapid response to rainfall, or with flooding due to infrastructure failure, flood waters can rise very quickly and put life at risk. Even shallow water flowing at 2m/s can knock children and many adults off their feet and vehicles can be moved by water of 300mm depth. The risks rise if the flood water is carrying debris. The impact on people as a result of the stress and trauma of being flooded, or even of being under the threat of flooding, can be immense. This also extends to whole communities. Long-term impacts can arise due to chronic illnesses and stress. Flood water contaminated by sewage or other pollutants (e.g. chemicals stored in garages or commercial properties) is particularly likely to cause such illnesses, either directly as a result of contact with the polluted flood water or indirectly as a result of sediments left behind. The degree to which populations are at risk from flooding is therefore not solely dependent upon proximity to the source of the threat or the physical nature of the flooding. Social factors also play a significant role in determining risk. Although people may experience the same flood, in the same area, at the same time, their levels of suffering are likely to differ greatly as a result of basic social differences. These differences will affect vulnerability in a verity of ways including and individuals or community s response to risk communication (flood warning) and physical and psychological recovery in the aftermath of a flood. How individuals and communities experience the impact will also vary depending on their awareness of the risk of flooding, preparedness for the flood event and the existence or lack of coping strategies Flooding Impact on Property Flooding can cause severe property damage. Flood water is likely to damage internal finishes, contents, electrical and other services and possibly cause structural damage. The physical effects can have significant long-term impacts, with re-occupation sometimes not being possible for over a year. The costs of flooding are increasing, partly due to increasing amounts of electrical and other sophisticated equipment within developments. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 30

41 The damage flooding can cause to businesses and infrastructure, such as transport or utilities like electricity and water supply, can have significant detrimental impacts on local and regional economies. The long term closure of businesses, for example, can lead to job losses and other economic impacts. Placing new development or regenerating in flood risk areas has its additional short and long term costs. The need to build resistant and resilient properties could significantly increase overall costs of development, whilst ongoing maintenance and insurance increase future expenditure Flooding Impact on the Environment Environmental impacts can be significant and include soil erosion, bank erosion, land sliding and damage to vegetation as well as the impacts on water quality, habitats and flora and fauna caused by bacteria and other pollutants carried by floodwater. Flooding can have a beneficial role in natural habitats. Many wetland habitats are dependent on annual flooding for their sustainability and can contribute to the storing of flood waters to reduce flood risk elsewhere. It is important to recognise the value of maintenance or restoration of natural riparian zones such as grasslands which protect the soils from erosion and natural meadows which can tolerate flood inundation. The use of Green Infrastructure throughout the river corridor can also play a vital role in enhancing the river environment as well as safeguarding land from future development, protecting people and buildings from flooding and reducing flood risk downstream. A natural floodplain can help accommodate climate change and improve the quality of rivers and associated wetlands to help achieve good status by 2015 under the Water Framework Directive. Meeting WFD objectives involves not only ecosystems, water quality, drought and flood impact considerations but also the physical characteristics and morphology of the river channel, floodplain and associated structures. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 31

42 4 The Sequential Approach 4.1 Introduction The SFRA is foremost a planning tool that is used to inform the spatial planning and development management process. Spatial planning provides the opportunity to make the greatest contribution to the long-term reduction in flood risk, providing the focus of the risk based sequential approach to managing flood risk, the backbone of PPS25. It helps to ensure that where new development takes place in areas at risk of flooding, it is appropriate and sustainable. Due to the need for growth, regeneration and inward investment, suitable development land has to be identified and its land use changed where necessary, in order to meet this demand. This is achieved using a hierarchical approach to risk management, by the sequential approach to land allocation, by first avoiding development in flood risk areas wherever possible. Where this is not possible then the vulnerability of the proposed land use to flooding should be considered and substitution of lower vulnerable developments in high flood risk areas must be carried out. Finally, mitigation measures taken to minimise flood risk to people, property and the environment should be considered. The sequential approach is governed by two tests; the Sequential Test and the Exception Test. The consideration of flood risk to people and development, must be considered by the LPA at the earliest stage of spatial planning decisions. These tests allow this process to be successful through transparent application. 4.2 The Sequential Test PPS25 provides the basis for the Sequential Approach, it recommends that LPAs use a risk based approach to development planning and specifies the need for undertaking RFRAs and SFRAs in Annex E. The SFRA provides a framework to undertake both the Sequential and Exception Tests as part of the sequential approach. The Environment Agency Flood Zone Map provides the foundation of the Sequential Test, on the basis of the Flood Zones provided in Table D.1 of PPS25. According to PPS25, The overall aim of decision-makers should be to steer new development to Flood Zone 1. Where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 1, decision-makers identifying broad locations for development and infrastructure, allocating land in spatial plans or determining applications for development at any particular location should take into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and consider reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 2, applying the Exception Test if required. Only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 1 or 2 should decision-makers consider the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3, talking into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and applying the Exception Test if required. 4.3 The Exception Test Where new development is exceptionally necessary within areas at risk of flooding, Government policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible reducing overall flood risk. This is in accordance with paragraph 19 of PPS25, which states: The Exception Test is only appropriate for use when there are large areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3, where the Sequential Test alone cannot deliver acceptable sites, but where some continuing development is necessary for wider sustainable development reasons, taking into account the need to avoid social or economical blight and the need for essential civil infrastructure to remain operational during floods PPS25 explains where and for what type of development the Exception Test needs to be applied. For certain types of development, it is not appropriate to use the Exception Test 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 32

43 to justify development. For example, highly vulnerable development cannot be justified within the high risk zone through the use of the Exception Test. Whilst Figure 5 below shows flood risk vulnerability and flood zone compatibility, indicating situations where it is necessary and appropriate to apply the Exception Test, the Exception Test must not be used to bypass the Sequential Test. Figure 5 - Where the Exception Test Applies Category Zone EL HV MV LV WC 1 2 3a 3b EL = Essential Infrastructure, HV = Highly Vulnerable, MV More Vulnerable, LV Vulnerable, WC = Water Compatable Denotes that development would be permitted. An FRA would be r in Zones 2 & 3 and may be required in Zone 1 sites Denoted where Exception Test is required Denotes that development should not be permitted in this zone There are three stringent conditions, all of which must be fulfilled before the Exception Test can be passed. These conditions (see paragraph D9 of PPS25) are as follows: a. It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a SFRA where one has been prepared. If the LDD has reached the submission stage (see Figure 4.1 of PPS12: Local Development Frameworks) the benefits of the development should contribute to the Core Strategy s Sustainability Appraisal (SA); b. The development must be on developable previously-developed land or, if it is not on previously-developed land, that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable previously-developed land; and c. A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. The Level 1 SFRA provides sufficient information to complete the Sequential Test in terms of flood risk. However, it can only provide information on where it will be necessary to complete the Exception Test and areas where part c) of the Exception Test is most likely to be met. It will not provide sufficient information to complete the Exception Test. To pass part c), more detailed assessment of risk will still be required. Only on completion of the Sequential Test should the Exception Test be used to justify allocations or developments in high-risk areas. Whilst the SFRA has been undertaken in conjunction with the Environment Agency, it is likely they will object to some of the sites, and may maintain objections to these on site-specific flood risk grounds unless sufficient information can be provided to show the risks can be safely mitigated in the design. This is a matter of detail that cannot be addressed in a Level 1 SFRA however; elements that will need to be considered in the delivery of the Exception Test include: 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 33

44 Will the development be safe? Can all the risks be designed out and can the residual risks to people and property be managed by an emergency plan or by limiting the type of land use? Will the site be deliverable? This involves a review of economic and design aspects, together with an understanding of how complicated the assessment will need to be and how exceptional the development would need to be. How well does the development fit with the current mix of land uses and future provision of flood management measures? Can development within the policy area reduce flood risk to other areas; will it require further more expensive provision of flood defence infrastructure? The section below provides more details on safe development How to Measure Safety PPS25 requires that where development is permitted in flood risk areas that it is safe, for the lifetime of the development, taking into account climate change. This is stressed in Part c) of the Exception Test. The most effective way of making development safe is firstly by avoiding development in flood risk areas. However if development has first gone through the Sequential Test sieving process and passed Part a) of the Exceptions Test, then the development must be viewed as an essential part of that communities redevelopment or regeneration strategy and therefore relocation would be difficult. It is the aim of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to assess whether the development can be designed to be sustainable and safe. According to PPS25, When considering safety, specific local circumstance need to be taken into account, including; The characteristics of a possible flood event, e.g. the type and source of flooding and frequency, depth, velocity and speed of onset; The safety of people connected with the development. This should cover both the safety of people within the building if it floods and also the safety of people in adjacent areas. This includes the ability to safely access and exit the building and the ability of the emergency services to evacuate or rescue people; The structural safety of the building; and The impact of a flood event on the service provided by the development, e.g. water, electricity and fuel supplies." Volume III of this Level 1 SFRA provides guidance for FRA and making development safe, which should be viewed along side the requirements of PPS25 and its Practice Guide. 4.4 Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification Flood risk vulnerability classifications are provided in Table D.2 of PPS25 and Appendix B of this report. These clearly state that not all land uses have the same vulnerability to flooding. Some land uses such as residential developments are more vulnerable to the potential loss of life and damage to personal property and possessions than shops and offices. There are five flood risk vulnerability classifications: Essential infrastructure Highly vulnerable More vulnerable Less vulnerable Water compatible development. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 34

45 4.4.1 Flood Zone 1 Low Probability From a flood risk perspective, all land uses are acceptable within Flood Zone 1. Flood risk is not considered a significant constraint to development and all development types listed below are appropriate in this zone. Essential infrastructure Highly vulnerable More vulnerable Less vulnerable Water compatible development. A Screening Study, as per PPS25 Practice Guide, will be required for development in this zone this will determine whether further assessment of flood risk is required. This will take account of historical flood records of localised flooding, site-specific considerations and the surface water proposals for the development, including mitigation. However, due to their potential impact on the local flood risk, a full Flood Risk Assessment will be required for all developments greater than 1ha in size. This will include further consideration of surface water drainage and onsite mitigation measures that may be required, particularly where the capacity of the surface water sewer or receiving watercourse is limited. This assessment will be undertaken by the developer of the site and should be appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the development. The Council s Drainage Engineers and the Environment Agency will be able to advise potential developers as to their specific requirements on a site by site basis Flood Zone 2 Medium Probability Subject to the application of the Sequential Flood Risk Test, PPS25 specifies suitable types of development in Flood Zone 2 as: Essential infrastructure More vulnerable Less vulnerable Water compatible development. Highly vulnerable uses should only be permitted in this zone if the Exception Test is passed. The SFRA is unable to assess whether the site will pass Part a) of the Exception Test. However, the Council must be able to demonstrate the need for development through the spatial planning process. A Flood Risk Assessment will be required for all development in this zone. The Flood Risk Assessment will need to assess the current level of flood risk as well as the level of flood risk following development. Development plans for the site will need to demonstrate that flood risk can be effectively and safely managed without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Proposals will also need to demonstrate that access and egress to the development can be maintained during an extreme flood event and that development is set at an appropriate level. A further level of analysis may be required where development is planned behind or adjacent to existing defences in order to test the sustainability and robustness of the mitigation measures. In keeping with Flood Zone 1 other flood risk constraints, such as incidents of localised flooding and other site specific considerations will need to be addressed. Again, detailed FRAs will need to be undertaken by the developer of the site and the Environment Agency will be able to advise potential developers as to their specific requirements on a site by site basis. The Flood Risk Assessment will need to address part c. of the Exceptions Test and should only be commenced when the planning justification is clearly established Flood Zone 3 High Probability A Sequential Flood Risk Test is used to prioritise sites in order of vulnerability to flood risk and their acceptability for development. Developers should primarily focus on lower Flood 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 35

46 Zones in preference to Flood Zone 3. Any proposals for development within Flood Zone 3 will require developers to undertake a detailed Flood Risk Assessment. It should be noted that constraints to development are likely to be significant and developers should seek advice from the Council and the Environment Agency as to the specific requirements for assessment. Flood Zone 3 is subdivided into Zones 3a and 3b. Flood Zone 3b is the portion of floodplain that provides natural and/or managed attenuation. It can be all or part of the flow area and owing to the frequency of inundation, Zone 3b areas are considered to be Functional Floodplain. Urban areas are generally considered to be Zone 3a. However, previously developed brownfield land, adjacent to watercourses may provide opportunities to incorporate space for flood water to reduce flood risk to new and existing developments. Opportunities to reinstate the functional floodplain on brownfield sites will therefore be identified. Zone 3a is potentially suitable for water compatible and less vulnerable land uses. The more vulnerable and essential infrastructure uses should only be permitted in this zone if the Exception Test is passed. Highly vulnerable development should not be permitted in this zone. In Zone 3b, only essential infrastructure (subject to exception testing) and watercompatible uses may be permitted. Where sites are partially located within Flood Zone 3b, it is recommended that the Council should avoid development by specifying water compatible uses or public open space for these areas. Land use vulnerability classifications and flood zones are carried forward into Table D.3 for application of the Exception Test. 4.5 Levels of Flood Risk Assessment Within the hierarchy of regional, strategic and site-specific flood-risk assessments, a tiered approach ensures that the level of information is appropriate to the scale and nature of the flood-risk issues and the location and type of development proposed, avoiding expensive flood modelling and development of mitigation measures where it is not necessary. As stated in PPS25 the three principle levels of assessment comprise: Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) a broad overview of flood risk issues across a region to influence spatial allocations for growth in housing and employment as well as to identify where flood risk management measures may be required at a regional level to support the proposed growth; Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) an assessment of all types of flood risk informing land use planning decisions. This will enable the LPA to apply the Sequential Test in PPS25 and allocate appropriate sites for development, whilst identifying opportunities for reducing flood risk; and Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) site or project specific flood risk assessment to consider all types of flood risk associated with the site and propose appropriate site management and mitigation measures to reduce flood risk to and from the site to an acceptable level. In a plan-led system, implementation of the sequential risk-based approach requires that forward planning policy decisions in RSSs and LDF/LDDs are guided by information on flood risk to ensure that allocating inappropriate development does not unnecessarily raise expectations of landowners and developers. This should be achieved through the use of RFRAs and SFRAs, which are generally broad-brush assessments of the risk of flooding, to guide strategic planning decisions. They involve the collection and collation of data on flooding and flood-risk management from all available sources to provide information to the necessary level of detail to allow decision-makers to: Prepare appropriate policies for flood-risk management within RSSs and LDFs; 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 36

47 Produce a strategic understanding of the scale, extent and nature of the flood risk at a community level and how that would alter with any proposed development; Apply a risk-based, sequential approach, providing risk data to inform the Exception Test and to confirm the compatibility between the flood risk vulnerability of the proposed allocation and the Flood Zone; Inform the strategic environmental assessment of RSSs and LDFs; Translate the national guidance into locally specific guidance, including the identification of areas of floodplain that should be safeguarded for flood management purposes Identify the level of detail required for site-specific flood-risk assessments in particular locations; and Determine the acceptability of flood risk in relation to emergency planning capability and how the existing and proposed community would respond to a flood event. 4.6 Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment A Level 1 SFRA should be sufficiently detailed to allow the application of the Sequential Test and to identify whether the Exception Test is likely to be necessary. Existing data should be used to make an assessment of flood risk from all sources now and in the future Data collection and review A critical phase in the project delivery is the collection and review of existing data. This is done through the SFRA Consultation process. The data sought relates predominantly to known or perceived flood risk issues within the area, development pressures and constraints, and current policy governing development within flood risk affected areas Assessment of current fluvial flood risk Flood risk within Hartlepool BC will be assessed, categorised and mapped to a level concurrent with the nature and availability of existing data. In general, however, the following key considerations will be addressed: Identification of known and/or perceived flood risk areas, providing the initial filter for key flood risk issue areas within the district. Review of current Flood Zone Map and existing 1D hydraulic models, providing the broad (first pass) definition of High Risk Zone 3. Definition of the functional floodplain Location and definition of the standard of existing defences and identification of areas that may be at risk from defence failure, requiring further investigation in Level 2. Identification of developing areas contributing to critical ordinary watercourses and/or known flooding issue areas to ensure impact upon upstream and downstream properties is adequately considered (irrespective of flood risk posed to proposed development). Definition of areas subject to development pressure and/or regeneration Review climate change and land use management impact Climate change has the potential to significantly increase the consequences of flooding, and consideration will also be given to the sustainability of new development under climate change and more extreme events. The future Flood Zones 3 allowing for climate change will be delineated using standard Defra guidelines. Consideration will be given to the implications of wider land management practices on flood risk in the area. This will be based on existing information such as the Tees CFMP. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 37

48 4.6.4 Assess flood risk from other sources and potential for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) This stage will provide an indication of overland flow routes and areas prone to surface water flooding and sewer flooding. The assessment focuses on storm events that exceed the available capacity of surface water systems and is particularly useful when assessing potential sources of flood risk associated with windfall sites. The relative suitability of different areas for SUDS will be identified Outputs and application of the Sequential Test The outputs of Level 1 will be used to produce maps and GIS layers of flood risk from all sources, accounting for climate change. Potential future development sites wiithin Hartlepool BC can then be overlain onto the identified Flood Risk Zones, and each subsequently categorised in accordance with the PPS25 Sequential Test, with recommendations made for each site. This will also allow an identification of sites which require further investigation in the Level 2 SFRA. Draft guidance for the future management of development within low, medium and high flood risk zones will be provided to meet the requirements of national planning guidance and regional and local flood risk policy. Consideration of the requirements for FRAs, and suitable mitigation measures (such as surface water attenuation and SUDs) will be identified to assist both developers and planners. 4.7 Applying flood risk to the LDD Figure 6 illustrates the accountability of flood risk within LDDs and the use of SFRA information. The flow diagram has been adapted from PPS25 Practice Guide (Figure 2.4 p.14) to link in with this guidance. Each colour represents a key stage in the sequential approach process. It must be acknowledged that Figure 6 is a generic flow diagram, with each LPA likely to be at different stages of its LDD process. The LPA may have produced a Core Strategy prior to undertaking the Sequential Test with the benefit of the data in this SFRA or are preparing their LDDs and allocating development. PPS25 Practice Guide assumes a strong link with the Sustainability Appraisal and the SFRA influences, at all stages of the Sustainability Appraisal. Therefore, the generic flow diagram in both PPS25 Practice Guide and this document should be amended to take account of steps that may have previously been taken within the first pass of the Sustainability Appraisal stage. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 38

49 Figure 6 - Taking flood risk into account in LDDs 4.8 Applying the Sequential Test and assessing the likelihood of passing the Exception Test This section provides guidance on how Spatial Planners are to apply the Sequential and Exception Test within the Sustainability Appraisal of LDDs. Figure 6 identifies how flood risk is taken into account in LDDs and introduces the use of the Sustainability Appraisal in applying the Sequential and Exception Tests. What PPS s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 39

50 does not provide, is step-by-step guidance on how to apply each Test rather the concept in which they are applied. What this guidance will do, if followed appropriately, is produce clear and transparent evidence that both the Sequential and Exception Test have been applied. This can then feed into the Sustainability Appraisal process of LDDs. This can either be reported within the Sustainability Appraisal itself or a supporting stand-alone document which then feeds into the Sustainability Appraisal. The guidance provided in this document should not supersede PPS25 or other plans and policies, but should be seen as a practicable approach in how the LPA should apply the Sequential and Exception Tests within the preparation of the LDF Spatial Planning Flow Diagrams and Tables The following flow diagrams and tables provide a recommended approach for Spatial Planners in applying the two tests, keeping in mind the flood risk management hierarchy of avoid, substitute, control and mitigate, whilst identifying and allocating sustainable development sites. Colours have again been used to represent key stages in the sequential approach process as identified in Figure 6 previously. The same colours are used in the flow diagrams and tables below, the aim of which is to make it easier to identify what guidance relates to individual steps within the sequential approach sequence. Figure 7 below, illustrates the Sequential and Exception Tests as an input, process and output flow diagram. The main inputs being the evidence provided in both the Level 1 and Level 2 SFRA and the LPA Core Strategy and Sustainability Appraisal. The flow diagram begins by the LPA assessing alternative development options at a strategic scale using the Sustainability Appraisal. This then works down using evidence provided in the Level 1 and Level 2 SFRA to avoid inappropriate development sites, substitution within the site boundary and identifying those sites requiring the Exception Test. The flow diagram ends by revisiting and updating the Sustainability Appraisal with the allocation of development sites. Figure 7 can be linked to Figure 8, which provides a more detailed descriptive stepby-step guidance of the flow process illustrated. During this process there is a need to identify which sites should be avoided, substituted, those which can go forward, or once the Sequential Test has been applied how to assess if the site will remain safe during the Exception Test. This process must be documented, but it could be challenging as a number of the criteria used are qualitative and based on experienced judgement. Figure 9 provides more guidance on using the Sequential Test Spreadsheet produced in the SFRA during Steps 1 to 8. Figure 10 provides guidance on how to assess the likelihood of sites passing the Exception Test using key questions and evidence provided in the SFRA in assessing whether a site will remain safe or not during Steps 9 to s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 40

51 Figure 7 - Sequential and Exception Test Flow Diagram 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 41

52 Figure 8 - Sequential and Exception tests Key Steps 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 42

53 Figure 9-1st and 2nd Pass of Proposed Development Sites Sequential Test &&& -( ".#!! #& ' ( '! &&& (" ( " # $% "# $%&'()*+, Once the requirement for a Level 2 SFRA has been identified, Spatial Planners will need to assess the likelihood of sites passing the Exception Test (see Section 4.3). The evidence for this is completed in a Level 2 SFRA. By following Figure 10, following the completion of a Level 2 SFRA, Spatial Planners should be able to obtain a greater understanding on the level of flood risk present at each key development site that remains following the application of the Sequential Test. During Steps 9 and 10, following Figure 7, Spatial Planners should use the Sustainability Appraisal process to assess alternative sites against flood risk indicators and other planning consideration. Once this has been completed, Steps 11 and 12 can be carried out, producing the evidence base for the Sustainability Appraisal, allocating appropriate development sites, producing flood risk policies and development guidance. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 43

54 Figure 10 - Identifying the Likelihood of passing the Exception Test 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 44

55 5 Consultation & Data Management 5.1 Consultation Process To carry out an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of flood risk across Hartlepool, it is essential to collate and build upon the best available data and studies already carried out. This information has been used to form the foundation of the SFRA. The Environment Agency Flood Map is the main source of fluvial and tidal flooding across England and Wales and is the basis of PPS25 Flood Zones. However, the SFRA must also consider flooding from all sources and this is only achievable through consulting with those stakeholders with specific interest or knowledge in other sources of flooding. This data collection process is a key part of the SFRA and has enabled this SFRA to be based on a significant amount of information that already exists on Hartlepool. PPS25 outlines a number of key consultees to the planning process, which are discussed below and their involvement within the Hartlepool SFRA. 5.2 Key Stakeholders Hartlepool Council Hartlepool BC was the main stakeholder for the preparation of this SFRA. They focused the scope of the SFRA and provided the detail needed for its production. Initial conversations were held to discuss Hartlepool BC's development allocations and the requirements of producing a Level 1 SFRA and to determine the main tasks needed to be completed. Correspondence has occurred since the initial meeting requesting information on historical flooding and future development allocations. Hartlepool BC supplied development allocation data including: Available Employment Land SHLAA sites Cleveland Emergency Planning Unit (includes representatives from Hartlepool BC) also provided information on significant flood risk locations Environment Agency The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee for RSSs, LDDs, Sustainability Appraisals and Strategic Environmental Assessments. They are also a statutory consultee for planning applications. With regards to the Hartlepool BC SFRA, the Environment Agency has discretionary powers under the Water Resources Act (1991) to manage flood risk and, as a result, hold the majority of flood risk data in the UK. Separate departments were consulted via the External Relations Team including Development Control, Flood Mapping and Reservoir Safety Teams on the SFRA approach and the available data. A full list of data provided by the Environment Agency is available in the Data Register discussed in Section 5.3 but the main themes can be summarised below: Tees Catchment Flood Management Plan Strategic flood risk mapping models and reports LiDAR data (Geomatics Group) Historical flood data Flood warning data. Pre-feasibility studies 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 45

56 5.2.3 Highways Agency All major roads and motorways have the potential to impact on flood risk. This is especially the case in an urban environment when roads can form potential flow routes or major structures such as bridges or culverts can significantly reduce the capacity of watercourses and therefore increase flood risk. Road networks that are at risk of flooding also have the potential for wider impacts reducing access and egress routes to and from sites, which could increase the vulnerability of areas to flooding. The Highways Agency was consulted on all know flood incidences on their road networks. The Highways Agency forwarded this request on to A-One who manage and maintain the trunk roads and motorway network in the north east of England on behalf of the Highways Agency Northumbrian Water Local water authorities are identified as a key consultee within PPS25 as they are generally responsible for surface water drainage from developments. This SFRA should therefore take account any information they may hold on capacity issues or know historical flood incidences. Sewers are a significant source of flooding especially within urban areas. Flood risk data that Northumbria Water (NWL) holds on the public sewer network are seen as critical in getting an understanding of flooding from all sources in Hartlepool BC. The main source of information requested from NWL was a copy of their DG5 records. Northumbrian Water has stated that they are willing to share information they hold subject to confirming their legal responsibilities for such data. Northumbrian Water (NWL) has not been able to provide any information until recently. After having a meeting with NWL it was agreed that they would send DG5 (sewer flooding data) at drainage area level. The drainage areas have also been highlighted according to the level of risk Cleveland Fire Brigade Emergency services are a good source of historical flood data. For instance, when the fire brigade are called out to flood related incidences, they keep a detailed registers of all call outs, which includes the source of flooding and the action taken. Cleveland Fire Brigade has provided geo-referenced data in spreadsheet format of all water related call outs since This has been edited (excluding burst pipes etc) to 31 flooding incidents and converted to GIS. These locations have also been mapped along with all other historical data collected. 5.3 SFRA Data Management & Review This SFRA should be viewed as a living document, which is anticipated to be used in the day-to-day process of planning and development. Therefore, it is important that datasets collected for the Hartlepool SFRA are transparent and accessible. A Data Register has been produced and supplied to Hartlepool BC listing all data received throughout the SFRA process. A screen shot of the register is shown in Figure 11. A copy of the register has been provided in Appendix C of this report. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 46

57 Figure 11 - Hartlepool SFRA Data Register (screenshot) Most data requested was quality and accurate as expected. Whilst the majority of the datasets could be mapped geographically (GIS) helping to visualise the risk of flooding, others had to be digitise and their accuracy could not be guaranteed. The confidence in the precision of flood risk locations can be questionable; however, this should be expected in historical flood records. The Data Register will allow intended users of the SFRA to review the accuracy, currency and relevance of all datasets used and for a central group to manage and update datasets when needed. The Data Register also provides details of all contacts who supplied the data. The organisations listed should be the first contact for any update to the SFRA to make sure the most up-to-date datasets are used. This register will also allow for a control on the publication and release of SFRA data to third parties outside of the main stakeholders. Initially the SFRA report and associated maps should be published on the Hartlepool BC website as the central source of SFRA data and available to download. However, if a third party requests additional data (i.e. GIS data, hydraulic models), they should be advised to contact the original supplier of the dataset directly as there maybe licensing issues involved. 5.4 SFRA Data Gaps Volume II Section 1 Data Sources provides a review of all major flood risk information collected for the Hartlepool SFRA including: Environment Agency Flood Map NFCDD Hydraulic Modelling Studies Topographic data Historical Flooding Incidents. During the data collection phase, it became apparent that there are some data gaps in flood risk information relevant to the Hartlepool SFRA. Whilst the majority key information 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 47

58 was available for main sources of flooding in the study area, the most significant missing data highlighted in Volume II included. Detailed sewer flooding information Planned sewer improvement works Detailed reservoir information Highway flooding information Comprehensive climate change outlines Functional floodplain outlines 5.5 SFRA Monitoring Whilst this SFRA has been produced using the most up-to-date national guidance and flood risk data, it is recommended that the SFRA should be updated on a regular basis. The Environment Agency has suggested this be every three to four years, unless there is a significant flood affecting the area, arising to new information or areas at flood risk. A review of the SFRA should also be undertaken if there are any major national policy changes. There are a number of key outputs from possible future studies and dataset, which are known to be regularly updated. These should be incorporated in any update to the SFRA. Table 6 contains a list of SFRA review triggers. Table 6- Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Review Triggers Trigger Sources Possible Timescale Tees CFMP Environment Agency Updated every 5 years Flood Zones Environment Agency Updated quarterly (significant change is not expected) NFCDD Environment Agency Ongoing Significant Flood Events All Unknown Sewer Flood Data Northumbrian Water Unknown Planning Policy Completion of SWMP/Drainage Strategy Communities & Local Government Hartlepool BC Unknown Unknown All datasets collected for the SFRA have been supplied to Hartlepool BC in the form the SFRA report, Maps and Figures. GIS data used to produce the maps have also been supplied. Once maps or the SFRA document is updated, it should be reissued to the relevant stakeholders. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 48

59 Appendices A. Flood Risk Zones Zone 1: Low Probability Definition This zone comprises land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river and sea flooding in any year (<0.1%). Appropriate uses All uses of land are appropriate in this zone FRA requirements For development proposals on sites comprising one hectare or above the vulnerability to flooding from other sources as well as from river and sea flooding, and the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off, should be incorporated in an FRA [Flood Risk Assessment]. This need only be brief unless the factors above or other local considerations require particular attention. See Annex E (of PPS25) for minimum requirements Policy aims In this zone, developers and local authorities should seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area and beyond through the layout and form of the development and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage techniques. Zone 2: Medium Probability Definition This zone comprises land assessed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding (1% 0.1%) and between a 1 in 200 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of sea flooding (0.5% 0.1%) in any year. Appropriate uses The water-compatible, less vulnerable and more vulnerable uses of land and essential infrastructure listed in [The Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, see Table A-2] are appropriate in this zone. Subject to the Sequential Test being applied, the highly vulnerable uses in Table D.2 (of PPS25 and Table B-2 of this report) are only appropriate in this zone if the Exception Test is passed FRA requirements. All development proposals in this zone should be accompanied by a FRA. See Annex E (of PPS25) for minimum requirements Policy Aims In this zone, developers and local authorities should seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area through the layout and form of the development and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage techniques. Zone 3a: High Probability Definition This zone comprises land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (>1%) and a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year. Appropriate uses The water-compatible and less vulnerable uses of land listed in Table D.2 (of PPS25 and Table A-2 of this report) are appropriate in this zone. The highly vulnerable uses listed in Table D.2 (of PPS25 and Table A-2 of this report) should not be permitted in this zone. The more vulnerable and essential infrastructure listed in the Table D.2 (of PPS25 and Table B-2 of this report) should only be permitted in this zone if the Exception Test is passed. Essential Infrastructure permitted in this zone should be designed and constructed to remain operational and safe for user in times of flood. FRA requirements All development proposals in this zone should be accompanied by a FRA, See Annex E (of PPS25) for minimum requirements. Policy Aims 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 49

60 Zone 3a: High Probability In this zone, developers and local authorities should seek opportunities to: 1. reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area through the layout and form of the development and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage techniques; 2. relocate existing development to land in lower Flood Zones; and 3. Create space for flooding to occur by restoring functional floodplain and flood flow pathways and by identifying, allocation and safeguarding open space for flood storage. Zone 3b: Functional Floodplain Definition This zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. SFRAs should identify this Flood Zone (land which would flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20 (5%) or greater in any year or is designed to flood in an extreme (0.1%) flood, or at another probability to be agreed between the LPA and the Environment Agency, including water conveyance routes). Appropriate uses Only the water-compatible uses and the essential infrastructure listed in Table D.2 that has to be there should be permitted in this zone. It should be designed and constructed to: remain operational and safe for users in times of flood; result in no net loss of floodplain storage; not impede water flows; and not increase flood risk elsewhere. Essential infrastructure in this zone should pass the Exception Test. FRA requirements All development proposals in this zone should be accompanied by a FRA. See Annex E for minimum requirements. Policy aims In this zone, developers and local authorities should seek opportunities to: i. reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area through the layout and form of the development and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage techniques; and ii. relocate existing development to land with a lower probability of flooding. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 50

61 B. Flood Risk Classification Classification Description Essential Infrastructure Essential transport infrastructure (including mass evacuation routes) which has to cross the area at risk and strategic utility infrastructure, including electricity generating power stations and grid and primary substations. Highly Vulnerable Police stations, Ambulance stations, Fire stations, Command Centres, and telecommunications installations required to be operational during flooding. Emergency dispersal points. Basement dwellings. Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use. Installations requiring hazardous substances consent (1) More Vulnerable Hospitals. Residential institutions such as residential care homes, children s homes, social services homes, prisons and hostels. Buildings used for: dwelling houses; student halls of residence; drinking establishments; nightclubs; and hotels. Non residential uses for health services, nurseries and educational establishments. Landfill and sites used for waste management facilities for hazardous waste. (2) Sites used for holiday or short-let caravans and camping, subject to a specific warming and evacuation plan Less Vulnerable Buildings used for: shops; financial, professional and other services; restaurants and cafes; hot food takeaways; offices; general industry; storage and distribution; non residential institutions not included in more vulnerable ; and assembly and leisure. Land and buildings used for agriculture and forestry. Waste treatment (except landfill and hazardous waste facilities). Minerals working and processing (except for sand and gravel working). Water treatment plants. Sewage treatment plants (if adequate pollution control measures are in place). Water-compatible Development Flood control infrastructure. Water transmission infrastructure and pumping stations. Sewage transmission infrastructure and pumping stations. Sand and gravel workings. Docks, marinas and wharves. Navigation facilities. MOD defence installations. Ship building, repairing and dismantling, dockside fish processing and refrigeration and compatible activities requiring a waterside location. Water-based recreation (excluding sleeping accommodation). Lifeguard and coastguard stations. Amenity open space, nature conservation and biodiversity, outdoor sports and recreation and essential facilities such as changing rooms. Essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required by uses in this category, subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 51

62 Classification Description Note 1: This classification is based on advice from the Environment Agency on the flood risks to people and the need of some uses to keep functioning during flooding. Note 2: Buildings that combine a mixture of uses should be placed into the higher of the relevant classes of flood risk sensitivity. Developments that allow uses to be distributed over the site may fall within several classes of flood sensitivity. (1) DETA Circular 04/00 para. 18: Planning controls for hazardous substances. (2) See Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 10 for definition. 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 52

63 C. Hartlepool SFRA Data Register 2009s HBC SFRA Vol I v2.0 53

64 Appendix C - Register of Data Job: Tees Valley SFRAs Title: Register: All data Received and Awaiting Item Description/Title Date Which LPA From who Contact Date Area Type requeste ref d received Date / Revision Quality Comments high, medium, low 1 Environment Agency Flood Map All EA 2 Areas Benefitting from Defences (GIS & All EA appropriate reporting) 3 Former Critical Ordinary Watercourses All EA All EA Ordinary watercourses and main rivers Sarah GIS - awaiting Baillie Shapefiles GIS - Sarah Shapefiles Baillie & report Sarah GIS - awaiting Baillie Shapefiles Sarah GIS - Baillie Shapefiles Information has arrived but yet to be registered. Information has arrived but yet to be registered. 5 Sarah All EA N/A GIS - Baillie Flood Storage Areas Shapefiles 6 Sarah GIS All EA awaiting NFCDD Baillie Shapefiles 7 Sarah GIS All EA N/A National Surface Water Map Baillie Shapefiles 8 Sarah GIS All EA N/A Groundwater flooding information Baillie Shapefiles 9 Database Sarah All EA awaiting and Baillie Reservoir Register and reservoir locations shapefiles 10 Sarah GIS All EA N/A Canal locations Baillie Shapefiles 11 Historical Flood Data including flood outlines Sarah and other descriptive dates, locations etc (EA All EA flood risk GIS Baillie Flood Incident Management) shapefile 12 Sarah GIS All EA 24-Jun-09 flood risk EA Flood Warning Areas Baillie MapInfo 13 EA Local Flood Warning Plan All EA Sarah Baillie awaiting Report Not dated Not dated High High There are no storage areas in SBC. JBA Information taken from Tees CFMP for SBC Some information has arrived but yet to be registered. There are no canals in Stockton BC 14 All EA Sarah Baillie Not stated Medium GIS location of these would be useful. A list of the models in the Tees Valley Excel All EA ISIS/HEC- Sarah RAS/TUFL awaiting Baillie OW/JFLO Available Hydraulic Models W 16 Modelled outlines (1 in 25, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 Sarah GIS All EA awaiting in climate change) Baillie Shapefiles 17 Model reports All EA Sarah Baillie awaiting Report

65 18 CFMP - and any additional details, maybe a table, on flood history (e.g. form the Inception Stage) All EA Sarah Baillie Report & Appendice s (GIS of Policy Units) Dec-08 Medium The CFMP is saved but we do not have any additional data e.g. Flood risk tables. 19 Sarah Shoreline Management Plan 2, River Tyne to All internet Baillie Flamborough Head, North East Coastal download Authorities Group, February 2007, 9P0184, Final Report Report 20 Flood Management Strategies All EA Sarah Baillie awaiting Report 21 Soil types, drift geology and solid geology (to be Sarah GIS All EA awaiting used for SUDS applicability) Baillie Shapefiles Available here: Selected files saved:n:\2009\projects\2009s Stockton On Tees Borough Council - Stockton on Tees SFRA Update\Supplied Data\Third Party\Coastal Group - SMP Still water levels (tidal) for the Tees Estuary from the Tees Tidal Strategy (2008). There are as Sarah Need to check follows: All EA flood risk Baillie report 1 in 200 = 4.186m 1 in 1000 = 4.403m Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council GIS RCBC RCBC Roger Tait awaiting allocations Shapefiles High Need to check the Tees Strategy 2008 for when the date of the extreme tide level was taken from. CC should be added to this to make it up to Hartlepool Borough Council allocations and potential future allocations HBC HBC Tom Britcliffe planning GIS - Shapefiles High 28 Tees Valley (old) SFRA. For all councils. internal All internal internal internal Word Feb-07 Medium Some data will be out of date. 29 Tees Tidal, Flood Risk Management Strategy, Draft Strategy. internal All internal Vicky Patterson ( ) internal pdf Feb-08 High 42 Water Rescue Scrutiny Report. Provides an overview of the flooding and associated water rescue capability of Cleveland Fire Brigade, and provides a picture of planned development work to meet future needs All Cleveland Fire Brigade. Internet (Ian Harrington) Ian Harrington flood risk pdf report Apr-09 N/A Requested their flood incident database and site specific information sheets. This should be followed up. 43 Cleveland fire brigade GIS of flood risk locations All Cleveland Fire Brigade. Internet (Ian Harrington) Ian Harrington awaiting flood risk gis 44 Flood risk data from the 2007 Tees SFRA. Includes fire brigade flood incidents (excel for Cleve and mapinfo for Darl), and chronology of historic flood events. 21/05/2009 All internal Helen High 22/05/2009 flood risk ex and mapinfo This can be used for the SFRAs but updated Summer 2006 Medium information has been requested from data holders. 45 quite a few docs on reservoirs and dams (M), groundwater flooding (M), emergency planning (M),

66 49 Tees Barrage scheme of operation. Description of how the barrage works. 22/05/2009 All internal Helen High 22/05/2009 Flood defence Word not dated Medium This came from the CFMP data collection 50 Flood history from the CFMP 55 EA assessment of Growth Point sites in the Tees Valley All SBC Matthew Clifford planning Word 22/05/2009 Medium Much of this is generic flood risk and suds advice but some important specific information such as the need for a buffer for the Tees Valley green corridor. 61 City Flood Guidance Document. Issue All SBC Matthew Clifford flood risk pdf Not dated Medium Identifies critical drainage areas. South Tees Draft Flood Risk Assessment. 71 Commissioned by the Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit. Parsons Brinckerhoff. Looking at land in All RBC Roger Tait flood risk word May-09 Medium Need to review this for Redcar BC SFRA the Tees Estuary for future industrial development. 74 NFCDD flood defences from the EA All EA 75 Ordinary watercourses for all LPAs All EA Jennie Lester Gemma Alecks Flood defence High Different to the national defences Baseline GIS MapInfo High 76 Selected hydraulic models from CDs sent by the EA All EA Jennie Lester model/mappin g isis High 80 DG5 sewer flooding data at drainage area level. This is the first level of data for identifying CDAs. 01/05/2009 All NWL Nicky Mathers 01/08/2009 flood risk GIS Aug-09 Medium N:\2009\Projects\2009s Stockton On Tees Borough Council - Stockton on Tees SFRA Update\Supplied Data\Third Party\NWL 81 Hartlepool IUD Pilot, Study Catchment, SLD 2295, Final Report, Volume 1 N/A HBC HBC Dave Thompson 84 Flood defences data for HBC 08/09/2009 HBC HBC 22 Flood risk and emergency planning information for HBC. 08/09/2009 HBC awaiting 24 Allocations confirmation for HBC 08/09/2009 HBC HBC 25 Integrated Urban Drainage outputs from HBC. 08/09/2009 HBC HBC 23 LiDAR for HBC and RBC 08/09/2009 All EA 24 River Stell appendices 10/09/2009 HBC EA not available 08/09/2009 flood risk report Jun-08 High 25 Basis of tidal Flood Zone map is along the coast of Redcar BC and Hartlepool BC 10/09/2009 All EA corres 197 Hartlepool Coastal Strategy HBC HBC Dennis Hancock 26/10/2009 Flood defence report Jan-06 High 198 Hartlepool flooding incidents from HBC engineers HBC HBC 199 Seaton Carew Coastal Strategy HBC HBC 200 Dennis Hancock Dennis Hancock 12/12/2009 flood risk CAD Medium 26/10/2009 Flood defence report Jul-09 Medium Draft outputs. Appendicies on the original CD.

67 Offices at Atherstone Doncaster Edinburgh Haywards Heath Limerick Newcastle upon Tyne Northallerton Northampton Saltaire Skipton Tadcaster Wallingford Warrington Registered Office South Barn Broughton Hall SKIPTON North Yorkshire BD23 3AE t:+44(0) Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd Registered in England Visit our website: