Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park ...€¦ · FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 i...

Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park

Authority

Level 1 Strategic

Flood Risk Assessment

April 2009

FINAL REPORT

JBA Consulting The Brew House Wilderspool Park Greenhall's Avenue WARRINGTON WA4 6HL UK t: +44 (0)1925 437 020 f: +44 (0)1925 437 029 [email protected]

Contracting Authority:

Tynedale District Council Old Grammar School, Hallgate,

HEXHAM, Northumberland

Northumberland National Park Authority

Eastburn, South Park, HEXHAM, Northumberland

Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park Tynedale Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2007s2721

JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 i

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Ref./ Date Issued

Amendments Issued to

Draft Submission

05 June 2008

Rob Naples, Tynedale District Council (Digital Copy)

David Coverdale, Northumberland National Park (Digital Copy)

Draft Submission

15 July 2008

Cameron Sked, Environment Agency (Digital Copy)

Final Draft Submission 20 January 2009

Comments included from: NNPA, Tynedale District Council and Environment Agency 05/08/08

Rob Naples, Tynedale District Council (Digital Copy)

David Coverdale, Northumberland National Park (Digital Copy) Cameron Sked, Environment Agency (Digital Copy)

CONTRACT

This draft report describes work commissioned by Tynedale District Council and Northumberland National Park. The client‟s representatives for the contract were Rob Naples and David Coverdale. Jonathan Cooper, Ann-Marie Gray, James Cheetham of JBA Consulting carried out the work. Prepared by: Ann-Marie Gray, BSc MSc Assistant Analyst James Cheetham, BSc MSc PhD

Analyst Reviewed by: George Heritage BSc PhD Technical Director Approved by: Jonathan Cooper, BEng MSc CEng MICE MCIWEM MiOD Divisional Manager

PURPOSE

This document has been prepared solely as a report for Tynedale District Council and Northumberland National Park. 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 www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 ii

CONTENTS

Page

REVISION HISTORY i CONTRACT i PURPOSE i CONTENTS ii LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF MAPS iv ABBREVIATIONS vii GLOSSARY viii

1 INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Format of the SFRA and Key Outputs ........................................................................................... 3

2 INTEGRATED FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT WITHIN LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANNING ------ 4 2.1 Introduction – Flood Risk Management Policy Drivers.................................................................. 4 2.2 National Planning Policy ................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Regional Planning Policy ............................................................................................................. 10 2.4 Local Plans Context ..................................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Balanced Sustainable Approach ................................................................................................. 21

3 RISK BASED APPROACH TO STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD RISK ----------------- 22 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 22 3.2 Background to Strategic Flood Risk Management Objectives .................................................... 23 3.3 The Risk Assessment Process .................................................................................................... 23 3.4 The Risk Based Sequential Approach: Overview ........................................................................ 24 3.5 Delineation of the Flood Risk Zones............................................................................................ 27 3.6 The Sequential Test – a sieving process .................................................................................... 30 3.7 Stepwise sequentially applied search ......................................................................................... 32 3.8 The Exception Test ...................................................................................................................... 39

4 SFRA FLOOD RISK MAPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 42 4.2 Maps Overview ............................................................................................................................ 42 4.3 SFRA Risk Maps: Interpretation and use .................................................................................... 43 4.4 General Map ................................................................................................................................ 43 4.5 Fluvial Flood Extent ..................................................................................................................... 44 4.6 Functional Floodplain and Climate Change Risk Map ................................................................ 44 4.7 Surface Water Flooding Maps ..................................................................................................... 44 4.8 Conclusion and Further use of SFRA Flood Risk Maps .............................................................. 45

5 APPLICATION OF SEQUENTIAL AND EXCEPTIONS TESTS AT SUGGESTED OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AS LDF SITE ALLOCATIONS ------------------------------------------------ 47

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 47 5.2 Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park Area ............................................... 47 5.3 Flooding from other sources ........................................................................................................ 48

6 GUIDANCE FOR DETAILED FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENTS ----------------------------------------- 50 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 50 6.2 General Principles ....................................................................................................................... 51 6.3 Assessment and Mitigation of Fluvial Risk .................................................................................. 52


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 iii

CONTENTS

Page

6.4 Assessment of Surface Water Drainage Issues .......................................................................... 52 6.5 Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SUDS) ............................................................................ 53 6.6 Flood Zone 3b – The Functional Floodplain ................................................................................ 55 6.7 Flood Zone 3a – High Probability ................................................................................................ 55 6.8 Other Known Flood Risk Areas ................................................................................................... 62

7 CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 63 7.2 Level 2 SFRA ............................................................................................................................... 63 7.3 Surface Water Management Plans.............................................................................................. 63 7.4 Water Cycle Studies .................................................................................................................... 64

APPENDIX A: - TYNEDALE DISTRICT COUNCIL & NORTHUMBERLAND NATIONAL PARK: SEQUENTIAL AND EXCEPTION TESTS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 67

A.1 TYNEDALE DISTRICT COUNCIL & NORTHUMBERLAND NATIONAL PARK AREA --------- 68 A.1.1 Allendale ...................................................................................................................................... 68 A.1.2 Bellingham ................................................................................................................................... 70 A.1.3 Corbridge ..................................................................................................................................... 72 A.1.4 Haltwhistle ................................................................................................................................... 73 A.1.5 Haydon Bridge ............................................................................................................................. 76 A.1.6 Hexham ....................................................................................................................................... 80 A.1.7 Prudhoe ....................................................................................................................................... 88 A.1.8 Northumberland National Park Areas .......................................................................................... 91 A.1.9 Remaining Sustainable settlements ............................................................................................ 92

APPENDIX B: - METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES --------------------------------------------------------- 124

B.1 METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES------------------------------------------------------------------ 125 B.1.1 Methodology of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment .................................................................... 125 B.1.2 Catchment Processes ............................................................................................................... 125 B.1.3 Developing the SFRA ................................................................................................................ 126 B.1.4 Flood Zone Maps ....................................................................................................................... 130 B.1.5 Flood Defences.......................................................................................................................... 131 B.1.6 Historical Flooding ..................................................................................................................... 131 B.1.7 Identification of Localised Drainage Issues ............................................................................... 131 B.1.8 Ground Water ............................................................................................................................ 132 B.1.9 Limitations of Background Information ...................................................................................... 132

APPENDIX C: - FLOOD RISK ZONES / FLOOD RISK VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION ------------ 134

C.1 FLOOD RISK ZONES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135

C.2 FLOOD RISK VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION ---------------------------------------------------- 136

C.3 DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOOD ZONES ----------------------------------------------------------------- 139

APPENDIX D: - ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEVELOPER AND LPA ---------------------- 140

D.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEVELOPER AND LPA ------------------------------ 141 D.1.1 Extract from the Companion to the Practice Guide PPS 25 ...................................................... 141

MAPS


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Overview of SFRA Study Area ......................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2-1: Tyne CFMP Policy Units ................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 3-1 Overview of Risk Based Sequential Approach ............................................................................... 25

Figure 3-2 Sequentially led Flood Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 27

Figure 3-3 Sequential Test Sieving Process .................................................................................................... 31

Figure 3-4 Application of the Exception Test ................................................................................................... 40

Figure 6-1: SUDS Management Train Principle .............................................................................................. 53

Figure 6-2 Illustration of the undefended area case, where the standard of protection is low, the floodplain

is small and fills to the same level as the river ................................................................................................. 56

Figure 6-3 Illustration of the defended area, where the overtopping or breach volume is small compared to

the floodplain receptor and allows a refined assessment of residual risk ........................................................ 57

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Tyne CFMP Draft Actions ................................................................................................................ 21

Table 3-1 Suggested Screening Criteria for Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 34

Table 6-1: Suitability of SUDS Techniques ...................................................................................................... 54

Table 6-1 Flood Hazard Thresholds ................................................................................................................ 60

Table 6-2 Screening Criteria for Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 61

Table B - 1 NFCDD Condition Ratings .......................................................................................................... 131

Table C - 1 Flood Risk Zones ........................................................................................................................ 135

Table C - 2 Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification ........................................................................................ 136

Table C - 3 Development allowed and not permitted in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3........................................... 139

LIST OF MAPS

The following plans are included at the back of this report:

Map 01 2007s2721 General Map

Map 02 2007s2721 Key Map

Map 03 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Featherstone, Gilsland, Haltwhistle, Greenhead, Park Village, Rowfoot

Map 04 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Hexham, Acomb, Anick, Oakwood, Sandhoe, Lowgate

Map 05 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Prudhoe, Ovingham, Ovington, Mickley Square, Mount Pleasant, Wylam, Horsley (south), Stocksfield


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 v

Map 06 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Allendale, Thornley Gate, Catton

Map 07 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Bellingham, Charlton, Lanehead, Greenhaugh

Map 08 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Corbridge, Broomhaugh, Riding Mill, Newton, Bywell

Map 09 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Haydon Bridge, Langley

Map 10 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Elsdon, Otterburn

Map 11 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Falstone, Falstone centre, Stannersburn

Map 12 2007s2721 Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Rochester

Map 13 2007s2721 Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Stonehaugh

Map 14 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Allenheads

Map 15 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Bardon Mill, Bardon Mill (south), Westwood, Redburn, Henshaw

Map 16 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Humshaugh, Wall, Fourstones, Newbrough, Barrasford, Simonburn

Map 17 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Bearsbridge, Whitfield

Map 18 2007s2721 Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Blanchland

Map 19 2007s2721 Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Byrness

Map 20 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Great Whittington

Map 21 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Healey

Map 22 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Hexhamshire

Map 23 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Horsley

Map 24 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Kielder, Butteryhaugh

Map 25 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Kirkwhelpington, Bavington

Map 26 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Knaresdale

Map 27 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Shotley Low Quarter, Whittonstall


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 vi

Map 28 2007s2721 Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Slaley

Map 29 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Birtley, Chollerton, Gunnerton, Wark

Map 30 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Corsenside, West Woodburn

Map 31 2007s2721 Suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Environment Agency Defences & Environment Agency Flood Zones: Whitley chapel

Map 32 2007s2721 Estimated functional floodplain and 100 year plus climate change flood extent

Map 33 2007s2721 Flood Risk from Surface Water, 1000 Year Rainfall Event: Hexham

Map 34 2007s2721 Flood Risk from Surface Water, 1000 Year Rainfall Event: Haltwhistle

Map 35 2007s2721 Flood Risk from Surface Water, 1000 Year Rainfall Event: Prudhoe


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 vii

ABBREVIATIONS

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan CLG Communities and Local Government COW Critical Ordinary Watercourse DC District Council DPD Development Planning Document EA Environment Agency EI Essential Infrastructure EU European Union FEH Flood Estimation Handbook FRA Flood Risk Assessment FZ Flood Zone HV Highly Vulnerable IDB Internal Drainage Board IDD Internal Drainage District LDF Local Development Framework LDS Local Development Scheme LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LPA Local Planning Authority LV Less Vulnerable MoD Ministry of Defence MV More Vulnerable NFCDD National Fluvial and Coastal Defence Database ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister OS Ordnance Survey PPG Planning Policy Guidance PPS Planning Policy Statement RFRA Regional Flood Risk Assessment RPB Regional Planning Body RPG Regional Planning Guidance RSS Regional Spatial Strategy SA Sustainability Appraisal SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SFRT Sequential Flood Risk Test SMP Shoreline Management Plan SPZ Source Protection Zone SuDs Sustainable Drainage Systems SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems UDP Unitary Development Plan W Water-compatible


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 viii

GLOSSARY

Actual Risk

The risk posed to development situated within a defended area (i.e. behind defences), expressed in terms of the probability that the defence will be overtopped, and/or the probability that the defence will suffer a structural failure, and the consequence should a failure occur

Catchment Flood Management Plan

CFMP

A strategic planning tool through which the Environment Agency (EA) will seek to work with other key decision-makers within a river catchment to identify and agree policies for sustainable flood risk management

Compensatory Storage A floodplain (flood storage) area introduced to compensate for the loss of storage as a result of filling for development purposes

Critical Ordinary Watercourse

COW

A watercourse that is known to have caused flooding or is perceived to pose a flood risk. DEFRA defines a COW as a watercourse that is not classified as “main river” but which the EA and other operating authorities agree is critical because it has the potential to put at risk flooding large numbers of people and property.

Combined Sewer Overflow CSO A structure that permits the controlled release of water from the combined underground foul and surface water drainage system when the pipe capacity is exceeded

Controlled (Regulated) Washland

A flood storage area that is filled and drained in a controlled manner during a flood event

Defended Area An area offered a degree of protection against flooding through the presence of a flood defence

DG5 register DG5 Register held by water companies on the location of properties at risk of drainage related flood problems

Extreme Flood Outline EFO Flood „zone‟ maps released by the EA in June 2004 depict anticipated 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) flood extents in a consistent manner throughout the UK

Flood Risk Management

The introduction of mitigation measures (or options) to reduce the risk posed to property and life as a result of flooding. It is not just the application of physical flood defence measures

Formal Defence A flood defence asset that is maintained by the EA

Flood Estimation Handbook FEH Provides current methodologies for estimation of flood flows for the UK

Floodplain Any area of land over which water flows or is stored during a flood event or would flow but for the presence of defences

Flood Risk Assessment FRA A detailed site-based investigation that is undertaken by the developer at planning application stage

Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification

Refer to Appendix C for definitions

Fluvial Flooding

Flooding caused by the overtopping of river or stream banks


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 ix

Freeboard A „safety margin‟ to account for residual uncertainties in water level prediction and/or structural performance, expressed in mm

Indicative Floodplain Map IFM

A depiction of the estimated 1% (1 in 100 year) flood extent, derived as a compilation of historical flooding, empirical estimates (IH130) and/or detailed flood modelling assuming “no flood defences”

Informal Defence A structure that provides a flood defence function, however is not owned nor maintained by the EA

IH130 The methodology adopted in the initial empirical estimation of the 1% (1 in 100 year) flood extent, informing the earliest version Indicative Floodplain Map

Main River A watercourse designated by DEFRA, that is managed and maintained by the EA using their permissive powers

Measure

A deliverable solution that will assist in the effective management (reduction) of risk to property and life as a result of flooding, e.g. flood storage, raised defence, effective development control and preparedness, and flood warning

Mitigation The management (reduction) of flood risk

Option Refer to „measure‟

PAG2

Project Appraisal Guidance (PAG) 2 (Strategic Planning) outlines the DEFRA requirements against which the EA must demonstrate that they are managing flood risk in a strategic (catchment wide) manner

Probability 1%

A measure of the chance that an event will occur. The probability of an event is typically defined as the relative frequency of occurrence of that event, out of all possible events. Probability can be expressed as a fraction, % or a decimal. For example, the probability of obtaining a six with a shake of a fair dice is 1/6, 16% or 0.166. Probability is often expressed with reference to a time period, for example, annual exceedance probability

Rapid Inundation Zone An area immediately behind defences which, should they fail, will generate a combination of high velocities and flood depths that would cause a risk to life.

Residual Risk The risk that inherently remains after implementation of a mitigation measure (option)

Return Period

The expected (mean) time (usually in years) between the exceedance of a particular extreme threshold. Return period is traditionally used to express the frequency of occurrence of an event, although it is often misunderstood as being a probability of occurrence.

Risk The threat to property and life as a result of flooding, expressed as a function of probability (that an event will occur) and consequence (as a result of the event occurring)

Section 105 Maps S105

The programme through which the EA have (to date) reviewed the 1% (1 in 100 year) flooding extents through detailed flood modelling throughout the UK as part of their duties under Section 105 of the Water Resources Act 1991

Scheme An engineering solution that will assist in the management (reduction) of risk to property and life as a result of flooding


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 x

Sequential Flood Risk Test SFRT The assessment and „categorisation‟ of flood risk on a catchment-wide basis in accordance with PPG25 Table 1 and Paragraph 30

Shoreline Management Plan SMP Non Statutory plan to provide sustainable coastal defence policies. They are prepared by Coastal Defence Groups

Standard of Protection SoP The return period to which properties are protected against flooding

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SFRA The assessment of flood risk on a catchment-wide basis for proposed development in a District

Strategic Flood Risk Management

SFRM

Considers the management of flood risk on a catchment-wide basis, the primary objective being to ensure that the recommended flood risk management „measures‟ are sustainable and cost effective

Sustainable Drainage Systems

SuDs A sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable fashion than some conventional techniques.

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

SUDS

Current „best practice‟ for new urban development that seeks to minimise the impact upon the localised drainage regime, e.g. through the use of pervious areas within a development to reduce the quantity of runoff from the site

Tidal Flooding Flooding caused as a result of tidal activity

Uncertainty A reflection of the (lack of) accuracy or confidence that is considered attributable to a predicted water level or flood extent

Uncontrolled Washland A flood storage area that fills and drains „naturally‟ (i.e. without manual interference) during a flooding event

Washland A flood storage area that is bounded by raised embankments to contain floodwaters

Windfall Site A potential development site not previously identified in a development plan, but which unexpectedly becomes available for development during the lifetime of a plan.


JBA Consulting www.jbaconsulting.co.uk N:\2007\Projects\2007s2721 - Tynedale Council - Tyndale Council SFRA\Graphical Data\Deliverables\Report\Word\2007s2721 Tynedale FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

In September 2007 JBA Consulting was commissioned by Tynedale District Council and Northumberland National Park to undertake the Tynedale Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA).

This SFRA is prepared in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPS 25)

1.

The SFRA is a planning tool that enables the Authorities to select and implement sustainable development away from vulnerable flood risk areas. The assessment focuses on suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations already identified within the study area but also sets out the procedure to be followed in when assessing additional sites in the future. The SFRA will assist the Authorities to make the spatial planning decisions required to inform each of their Local Development Frameworks (LDF).

Section 5 of this SFRA comprises a review of the Tynedale area and its suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations. A detailed review of policy documents and SFRA procedures is included as Appendix A.

1.2 Study Area

The area of Tynedale covers approximately 2210km2 located to the North East of England.

Northumberland National Park encompasses portions of Tynedale, Berwick-upon-Tweed and Alnwick District Councils. The northern section of the park, those areas that fall within Berwick-upon-Tweed and Alnwick are being assessed by the Northumberland National Park Northern Strategic Flood Risk Assessment which is being compiled by Jacobs and was released in draft form in October 2007.

1 Communities and Local Government. 2006 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. December 2006.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/955/PlanningPolicyStatement25DevelopmentandFloodRisk_id1504955.pdf



North

Extent of National Park within Tynedale District

Tynedale District© Crown Copyright LA100018249 2007

www.srtm.csi.cgir.org

Figure 1-1 Overview of SFRA Study Area

This study encompasses the southern part of the Park and the whole of the Tynedale District, as shown in Figure 1-1 . Hence the area under study is split between the two separate Planning Authorities of Tynedale District Council and the Northumberland National Park Authority. However, for simplicity, wherever appropriate the physical area as a whole is referred to as Tynedale in this report.

None of the suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations identified within Tynedale for this study fall within the Northumberland National Park boundary.

1.3 Study Objectives

Current 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, overall flood risk should be reduced. To this end, the key objectives of the Tynedale SFRA are:

To investigate and identify the extent and severity of flood risk to the area. This assessment will enable the council to steer development away from those areas that are at highest risk, ensuring that areas allocated for development can be utilised in a safe, cost effective and sustainable manner.

To supplement current policy guidelines and to provide a straightforward risk based approach to development control in the local area. This is aimed at both councils and developers.

Provide strategic flood risk guidance and advice to planners and developers to help them better understand flood risk and planning related issues, both generally and for specific locations across the study area.

To contribute to the council‟s Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and LDF. The SEA will be used to inform the council‟s Sustainability Appraisal (SA), which will aid the selection of suitable land allocations.



The SFRA is a reference document to which all parties involved in planning and flood risk can reliably turn to for initial advice

1.4 Format of the SFRA and Key Outputs

The SFRA has been prepared in three key sections as summarised below:

Section 1: SFRA Policy text

Section 1 provides a summary of the key explanations and a more in-depth assessment of the SFRA process, including requirements for Sequential and Exceptions Testing and considerations that the LPA‟s must assess if allocating for development.

Chapter 2: Integrated Flood Risk Management within Local Authority Planning

o This section puts the SFRA document and process into National, regional and local planning context.

Chapter 3: Risk based approach to the strategic assessment of flood risk.

o Provides a summary of the SFRA process, including requirements for Sequential and Exceptions Testing and considerations that the LPA‟s must assess if allocating sites for development. It also includes an example site classification summary table with explanatory notes to illustrate how the suitability of sites is determined.

Section 2: Implementation of the SFRA

Section 2 provides a summary of SFRA implementation, presenting flood risk maps, conducting sequential testing and providing guidance notes.

Chapter 4: SFRA Flood Risk Maps

o An explanation of the application and use of the SFRA maps produced as part of this report, outlining the procedure to identify sites within Flood Zones

Chapter 5: Application of Sequential and Exceptions Tests at Suggested Options For Consideration as LDF Site Allocations

o Provides an overview of the key flood risk issues, including flooding from other sources in the Tynedale area and the use and generation of the sequential and exception Tests carried out on the suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations.

Chapter 6: Flood Risk Assessment Guidance

o Provides guidance for planners and the LPAs of what to expect in the Flood Risk Assessment.

Appendix A: Site specific assessment

o The suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations have been divided into spatial locations, sustainable settlements and NNPA areas. Each of the suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations have been analysed in terms of their location in the Flood Zones, the local hydrology and references the SFRA maps.

Section 3: Further SFRA materials for additional guidance and support in using this SFRA including extracts from PPS 25.

Appendices B, C and D provide a more in-depth assessment of information used in the SFRA process. It also expands on the information provided in Section 2.



2 INTEGRATED FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT WITHIN LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANNING

2.1 Introduction – Flood Risk Management Policy Drivers

Current FRM policy drivers are principally related to the need to take account of projected climate change implications and the availability of funding for all operating authorities to be able to invest in the provision of sustainable flood risk management. This includes avoidance and mitigation through land use planning, having regard to flooding from all sources and improving and maintaining existing flood defences, where justified, to protect increasingly vulnerable communities.

Key documents currently influencing FRM policy are:

Future Water – The Government‟s water strategy for England – HM Government/Defra – Published in February 2008.

Improving Surface Water Drainage – Consultation to accompany proposals set out in the Government‟s Water Strategy, Future Water – Defra – Published in February 2008.

Making Space for Water - Taking forward a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. First Government response to the autumn 2004 - Making space for water consultation exercise – Published in March 2005.

Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25): Development and Flood Risk – Department for Communities and Local Government - Published in December 20062.

Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25): Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide – Department for Communities and Local Government – Published in June 2008

3.

Learning lessons from the 2007 floods – An independent review by Sir Michael Pitt – Published in June 2008

4.

Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) – currently being produced by the Environment Agency.

These documents can be used to help provide LPAs with valuable knowledge on the strategic direction of flood risk management in the UK. The implication of PPS 25 and the Practice Guide Companion are considered further in this SFRA. However; it is helpful to consider some relevant key aspects from the other documents at this point.

2.2 National Planning Policy

2.2.1 Planning and Compulsory Purchasing Act

The SFRA has been undertaken during a period in which planning authorities have been implementing the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and

2 Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 Development and Flood Risk

3 Communities and Local Government (2008) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 Development and Flood Risk Practice

Guide 4 Cabinet Office (2008) The Pitt Review: Lesson Learnt from the 2007 Floods

This section contains information on the planning framework. The planning process is driven by legislation and guidance developed at national, regional and local level. Flood risk is one of many planning considerations that need to be balanced when making land use decisions. This section summarises where flood risk considerations are included in the various planning guidance and regional and local documents. It sets an important scene as to why the SFRA is an important document.



accompanying planning guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development5 (PPS1) and Planning Policy Statement 12 Local Development Frameworks6 (PPS12). The Act has affected all tiers of the planning system and has necessitated major changes at regional and local level.

At a district Council level, Local Plans are being, and in some areas have already been, phased out and replaced by Local Development Frameworks (LDF), which are a suite of planning documents that will guide decisions on the development and use of land. Where Local Plans have been adopted recently, or preparation is at an advanced stage, the process will continue with adoption providing 'saved policies' for development control purposes. As the new Development Plan Documents are adopted, they will replace parts of the Local Plan. However, where it is proposed to cease work on the review of Local Plans and to commence work on LDFs, only those local plan policies which form part of the development plan can be saved.

Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) were required to produce a Local Development Scheme (LDS) by March 2005, setting out their programme for the production of the new development plan and summarising the documents that will, collectively, make up the Local Development Framework.

2.2.2 Development and Flood Risk

The introduction of PPG25 in July 2001 reinforced the responsibility that LPAs have to ensure that flood risk is understood and managed effectively using a risk based approach as an integral part of the planning process. PPG25 represented a marked shift from the reactive resolution of flooding problems as a result of development (i.e. flood defence) to the effective management of flood risk within the planning system.

Notwithstanding this, it is widely recognised that flood risk is one of many 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 posed to existing and future development in an area.

The role of the Environment Agency is to provide advice to LPAs to ensure the management of flood risk in an effective manner as part of the planning process. The Government has set an objective for the Environment Agency to reduce the risks to people and to the developed and natural environment from flooding. In response to this the Environment Agency has set a target to seek to influence planning activities to prevent 100% of inappropriate development inside floodplains.

2.2.3 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk

Whilst it is generally agreed that PPG25 has worked well and highlighted the importance of flood risk in the development process, it has been recognised that there is a need to focus on core policies that are clearer and easier to understand.

In December 2006 Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25) was published, superseding PPG25. The new PPS 25 is accompanied by the Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide.

The Government, through PPS 25, provides clarity on what is required at a regional and local level to ensure that appropriate and timely decisions are made to deliver sustainable planning for development. The key planning objectives are as follows:

“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.

5 Communities and Local Government. 2005. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. February

2005.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/806/PlanningPolicyStatement1DeliveringSustainableDevelopment_id1143806.pdf 6 Communities and Local Government. 2004 Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks. September

2004. http://www.communities.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?id=1143848



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).

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.

Ensuring spatial planning supports flood risk management policies and plans, River Basin Management Plans and emergency planning.”

7

The Sequential Test remains a key part of PPS 25, which steers new development to areas at the lowest risk of flooding. This Test is intended to provide a rigorous understanding of flood risk within their area, delineating the extent and nature of flooding in accordance with the flood risk zones set out within PPG25. This must consider the planning context and provide the framework for robust and sustainable flood risk management solutions within those areas where a balance is required between susceptibility to flooding and wider spatial planning pressures.

In addition, PPS 25 introduces the Exception Test which allows some scope for departures from the sequential approach where it is necessary to meet the wider aims of sustainable development. When the use of the Exception Test is required, decision makers should apply it at the earliest stage in the preparation of all Local Development Documents (LDDs). All three elements of the Exception Test need to be passed before development is permitted.

PPS 25 clarifies that the potential impacts of climate change should be addressed in Flood Risk Assessments, and includes advice on current sources of information on climate change including PPS Planning and Climate Change

8, which is a supplementary document to PPS1, to ensure that

plans and planning decisions are fully informed about climate change.

PPS 25 introduces the proposal for the Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007 which came into force on 1 January 2007. This document makes the Environment Agency a Statutory Consultee on all applications for development in flood risk areas (except minor development), including those in areas with critical drainage problems and for any development on land exceeding 1 hectare outside flood risk areas. 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. PPS 25 also includes provision to extend the criteria used to determine when the Environment Agency should be consulted on a planning application.

The Practice Guide to PPS 25 was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) in June 2008. It provides advice on the practical implementation of PPS 25

7 Communities and Local Government. 2006. Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. December 2006.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/955/PlanningPolicyStatement25DevelopmentandFloodRisk_id1504955.pdf 8 Communities and Local Government. 2006. Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change. December 2006.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/153119



policy and reflects extensive discussion with local authorities, the Environment Agency and other key stakeholders and practitioners.

Local Authority planners and developers are advised to refer to and use PPS 25 and the practice guide in conjunction with the further advice contained within this report.

Catchment boundaries often encompass many more than one planning district, therefore, it is imperative that the planning process ensures that policies adopted within the current planning timeframe are consistent with the longer term vision for the wider catchment, and take adequate account of the impacts that the decisions made may have upon adjoining districts

2.2.4 Other Planning Policy Statements

PPS1 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 Local Development Documents (LDDs), but their Core Strategy will be more strategic 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 non-structural 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 is 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 will be 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 also require sequential testing of site allocations and development proposals. PPS3 (Housing)9, emerging PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Development)

10 and PPS6

(Planning for Town Centres)11

are intrinsic within the planning process and, therefore, an understanding of the constraints faced as a result of this additional policy guidance is required.

For example, whilst the PPS3 Sequential Test recognises flood risk as a material consideration, its main emphasis is to seek the re-use of previously developed sites and empty or under-used buildings for housing. PPS 25 attempts to reconcile the emphasis which Government places on

9 Communities and Local Government. 2006. Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. November 2006.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/931/PlanningPolicyStatement3Housing_id1504931.pdf 10

Communities and Local Government. 2007. Consultation Paper on Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development. December 2007. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/614685

11 Communities and Local Government. 2005. Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres. March 2005.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/821/PlanningPolicyStatement6PlanningforTownCentres_id1143821.pdf



development of previously developed (brownfield) land for housing with the reality that a significant proportion of this land is located alongside rivers and vulnerable to flooding. Paragraph D14 of PPS 25 states:

“Criterion b) of para. D9 (The Exceptions Test) reflects the Government‟s commitment to make the most efficient and effective use of land in line with the principles of sustainable development. Reflecting this, Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing

8 sets out the Government‟s

objectives for a flexible, responsive supply of land for housing which gives priority to the use of previously-developed land for development. However, flood risk should be taken into account in determining the suitability of the land for development.”

It also recommends in Paragraph 52 that local authorities should consider combining the Sequential Test for flood risk assessment with reviews of housing land allocations under PPS3. There is some cause for concern as to whether challenging housing targets can be met when both these potentially conflicting Sequential Tests have been satisfied. One possible solution has been put forward by the Association of British Insurers:

“…when developing on higher-elevation greenfield sites… leaving an equivalent area of low lying brownfield land for flood storage could be the most effective way to minimise flood risk”.

This solution will require developers and urban designers to seek innovative design solutions to accommodate the necessary levels of development, whilst ensuring practical and manageable solutions are designed to address the issue of flood risk. Notwithstanding the above, PPS3 (November 2006) removes the requirement for sequential testing of housing sites and instead places emphasis on providing housing within sustainable locations. PPS3 identifies that in preparing Development Plan Documents relating to housing, Local Planning Authorities should assess their potential and suitability for development against:

“The physical and environmental constraints on development of land, including, for example, the level of contamination, severity of flood risk, taking into account that such risks may increase as a result of climate change.”

In determining which sites to include as housing allocations, regard should also be made to the sustainability appraisal of the site allocation. It is considered likely that all Local Authorities will include within their sustainability appraisal framework an element regarding potential impacts on flood risk. This along with an SFRA document should help to inform the identification of appropriate sites which are either not at risk of flooding or are considered sustainable and can incorporate adequate mitigation measures.

2.2.5 Making Space for Water

During 2004, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) undertook a consultation exercise, the object of which was to engage a wide range of stakeholders in a debate about the future direction of flooding strategy. The consultation document “Making Space for Water”

12 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 the current study.

Section 7 of the consultation document deals with measures to reduce flood risk through land-use planning. This section 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 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 have been built in flood-risk areas. The document identifies three

12

DEFRA. 2004. Making Space for Water – Developing a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England.



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 PPG25 (now PPS 25)

Provision of features such as sacrificial areas and compartmentalisation to reduce the consequences of a flood event should one occur

Use of construction techniques that increase the flood resistance and resilience of buildings.

The document proposes that Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks should take full account of flood risk and incorporate the sequential approach introduced by PPG25. Moreover, the document encourages integration with other planning systems, in particular Catchment Flood Management Plans

13. Use of European Union (EU) funding streams, such as

Interreg IIIB is recommended to enable Local Authorities to undertake trans-national projects aimed at advancing knowledge and good practice in flood risk management.

At the development control level, the document encourages Local Authorities to give full weight to the advice issued by the Environment Agency in response to consultations on planning applications, implying that only in exceptional cases should permission be granted against the Environment Agency‟s advice. In addition, the use of site specific (local) flood risk assessments as supporting documents to planning applications in areas of flood risk is encouraged. The document proposes that if mitigating measures are shown to be required, they should be fully funded as part of the development.

The Making Space for Water: Programme of Work was developed following the consultation. A number of projects have been commissioned under the programme and they split into the 4 key themes of:

holistic approach

achieving sustainable development

increasing resilience to flooding

funding

Quarterly update reports are released providing details of progress made and key achievements. These reports can be accessed via the Making Space for Water website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy.htm

Since the release of the consultation document, the Government's First Response14

to Making Space for Water sets out the strategic direction of travel on key issues. For those areas of complex policy that it cannot resolve, it sets out the programme of work required to achieve this. The programme will take account of any relevant recommendations that emerge from the independent lessons learned review into the 2007 floods that affected many parts of England.

2.2.6 The Pitt Review – Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods15

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.

The final report was published in June 2008 after 10 months of evidence collection and consultation. This included examining over 1000 written statements submitted by victims of the

13

Catchment Flood Management Plans are voluntary plans through which the Environment Agency works with other key decision makers in river catchments to identify and agree policies for sustainable flood risk management. 14

Defra 2005. Making Space for Water – Taking forward a new Government Strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk in England: First Response. March 2005.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/1stres.pdf 15

Sir Michael Pitt. „The Pitt Review – Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods‟. June 2008. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/thepittreview/final_report.aspx

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy.htm



floods, considering the experiences of other countries and visiting the communities of the affected areas.

The report presents a schedule of interim conclusions, many of which relate to local authorities. These interim conclusions are intended to shape the National approach to flood management and can be accessed via the Defra website.

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.

2.2.7 Improving surface water drainage

The „Improving Surface Water Drainage‟ consultation document16

was produced in support of the Government‟s water strategy and in line with Sir Michael Pitt‟s initial conclusions. This consultation considers policy measures to improve the way surface water runoff is managed. In particular, it proposes:

Issuing Surface Water Management Plans as a tool to improve co-ordination between stakeholders involved in drainage and local management of flood risk.

Increasing uptake of sustainable drainage systems by clarifying responsibilities for adoption and management.

Reviewing the ability for premises to connect surface water drainage automatically into the public sewer system.

Current roles and responsibilities are considered along with various options for improving the current surface water drainage situation. In particular the document recognises that SFRAs and Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) already form part of the PPS 25 planning framework and there is an aim to enhance their role and make stronger links between surface water drainage and strategic management.

2.3 Regional Planning Policy

2.3.1 Regional Spatial Strategy RSS17

The North East of England Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 was published in July 2008 and now outlines the current adopted planning strategy.

Paragraph 1.16 of the RSS describes the Single Regional Vision as, “The North East will be a Region where present and future generations have a high quality of life. It will be a vibrant, self reliant, ambitious and outward looking Region featuring a dynamic economy, a healthy environment, and a distinctive culture. Everyone will have the opportunity to realise their full potential.”

The central theme of the strategy is given as “… the need to achieve and maintain a high quality of life for all, both now and in the future” requiring “…a major economic, social and environmental renaissance throughout the region…” (Paragraph 2.4).

Policy 1 of the RSS gives the four themes for the successful implementation of this renaissance as:

“Strategies, plans and programmes should support a renaissance throughout the North East by:

delivering sustainable and inclusive economic prosperity and growth;

delivering sustainable communities;

conserving, enhancing and capitalising upon the Region‟s diverse natural and built environment, heritage and culture; and improving connectivity and accessibility within and beyond the Region.”18

16

Defra 2008. Consultation on Improving Surface Water Drainage. February 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/water-drainage/letter.htm 17

Communities and Local Governments (2008) The North East England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021. http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/regionallocal/regionalspatialstrategies/regionalspatialstrategies2



Sections 3.148 to 3.155 of the RSS deal specifically with flood risk, acknowledging that areas of the region are at risk of fluvial and coastal flooding as a consequence of climate change and factors such as land management and development.

Paragraph 3.149 describes the role of development decisions on flood events from various sources and how they can be addressed:

“Flooding from rivers and coastal waters is a natural process that plays an important role in shaping the natural environment. The damage that results to people and property is a consequence of previous human decisions about the location and nature of development and land use. Such damage cannot be prevented entirely, although its effects can be reduced by: reducing development upstream that may increase flooding; encouraging environmental management through the soft engineering of river banks; promoting rivers to find their natural courses; the use of SUDS techniques; the creation of associated riverine wetland areas; planting of trees; and the blocking of grips and dykes in upland moorland and peat bog to retain water and increase the water holding capacity of upland areas.”

The role of proactive management through the protection of the functional floodplain, the extension of managed washlands, managed realignment and the restoration of floodplains is presented in paragraph 3.155. Policy 35, “Flood Risk” brings all these points together.

“A. 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:

a. tidal effects around estuaries and along the coast including the implications of the latest Government predictions for sea level rise;

b. fluvial flooding along river corridors and other significant watercourses resulting from catchments within and beyond the Region and other sources of flooding; and

c. flooding resulting from surface water runoff and capacity constraints in surface water drainage systems.

B. 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.”

2.3.2 Integrated Regional Framework

In 2004 the document „Integrated Regional Framework (IRF): Achieving a Better Quality of Life‟ was published by Sustainability North East. It states that the Integrated Regional Framework, IRF, exist to “…provide[s] the framework to guide the development of strategies, plans, programmes and policy decisions throughout the region. It can help identify and exploit all opportunities and mitigate any potential negative impacts to sustainable development.”19

The revised RSS introduces the „Sustainability Statement‟ as a requirement to major planning proposals to ensure that the objectives outlined in the IRF are realised. The revised RSS states that “…the Sustainability Statement should be based on policy 2 [of the revised RSS] and the Integrated Regional Matrix within the IRF.”20

2.3.3 Regional Housing Strategy

The current Regional Housing Strategy, RHS, was adopted in 2003 and reviewed in July 2005 by the North East Housing Board. The Board also advises ministers on how to spend the funding

18

Communities and Local Governments (2008) The North East England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021. http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/regionallocal/regionalspatialstrategies/regionalspatialstrategies2 19

Sustainability North East. Integrated Regional Framework: Achieving a Better Quality of Life. 2004. http://www.northeastassembly.gov.uk/global/assets/documents/asset20040715034009.pdf

20 North East Assembly: The Voice for the Region. View: Shaping the North East – Regional Spatial Strategy for the North

East; Submission Draft. June 2005. pg 18. http://www.viewnortheast.com/documents/June05/RSSSUBMISSIONJUN05.pdf



allocated to local authorities and housing associations in the region, which for the 2 years up to 2006 was £170 million.

The revised RSS states that the 6 key aspects addressed by the RHS are:

market restructuring;

new housing provision;

investment and management of existing housing;

specific community needs;

involving communities; and

the implications for other strategies and sub-regions.”21

2.3.4 Regional Economic Strategy

The current Regional Economic Strategy (RES) „Leading the Way‟22 was published by ONE Northeast in September 2006 and covers the period from 2006 to 2016. The RES is a primary partner strategy to the RSS and sets out proposals to deliver greater and sustainable prosperity to all the people of the North East over the period to 2016.23

The RES:

outlines the region's main economic development priorities

analyses the strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities facing the region

provides a framework for the region's public, private and voluntary and community sector organisations to deliver actions for greater and sustainable prosperity

provides information on the region and its economy and the key relevant Government policies for developing the region.24

2.3.5 Climate Change Action Plan for the North East

Climate change impacts continue to provide an increasing challenge to sustainable flood risk management for government and operating authorities. The severe flooding 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.

Principal 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

21

North East Assembly: The Voice for the Region. View: Shaping the North East – Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East; Submission Draft. June 2005. pg14-15. http://www.viewnortheast.com/documents/June05/RSSSUBMISSIONJUN05.pdf 22

OneNorthEast. Leading the Way: Regional Economic Strategy. July 2006. http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/res.cfm

23 Communities and Local Governments (2008) The North East England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/regionallocal/regionalspatialstrategies/regionalspatialstrategies2 24

OneNorthEast. Leading the Way: Regional Economic Strategy. July 2006. http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/res.cfm



and Recent Trends‟ published in December 2007 and is available on their website. The next UKCIP08 report containing further climate change scenarios and is planned for launch in late 2008.

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.

The Climate Change Action Plan for North East England identifies what needs 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.

The full action plan can be found at: http://www.climatene.org.uk/

Tynedale Council have developed a local Climate Change Action Plan25. This has identified local issues and impacts relating to climate change and has gathered supporting evidence for these26 including flooding. The recommendations from this report will be passed on to the new Northumberland Council to be formed in April 2009.

The Northumberland Strategic Partnership published “The Heat is On. The Strategic Framework for Climate Change Planning in Northumberland” in December 200827. This document aims to:

“Encourage partners to put in place effective and timely measures at both corporate and community levels to address the causes and implications of climate change in Northumberland by mainstreaming climate change planning within their own core business.”

The section titled “Northumberland‟s vulnerability to flooding” acknowledges that the areas within Northumberland vulnerable to flooding “…will extend and impact on many more householders and infrastructure than current flood maps indicate.”

2.3.6 Environment Agency: Our Corporate Strategy for 2006 to 201128

The Environment Agency seeks to relate governmental flood risk and development guidance to local planning authorities, who are to be encouraged to carry out strategic Flood Risk Assessments and provide flood risk advice. Where developing a high-risk site is the only option then the Environment Agency policy is to promote flood resilience in property design.

The Environment Agency strategy also describes the intent to:

Influence Regional Spatial Strategies in the north east government region to ensure they contain effective flood risk management policies.

Review the economic cost of flood risk with regional development agencies.

Provide a flood warning service to 92 percent of people at risk, targeting in particular those at high-risk, via a risk-based approach. A new flood warning service will include the flood warnings direct project and improved flood forecasting systems.

25

Tyndale Council Cabinet Meeting minutes. Thursday 8 January 2009.

http://www.tynedale.gov.uk/residents/showpdfagenda.asp?meetid=868&agendaid=2

26 Appendix 2. Tynedale Climate Change Action Plan.

http://www.tynedale.gov.uk/residents/showpdfagenda.asp?meetid=868&agendaid=5

27 The Heat is On. The Strategic Framework for Climate Change Planning in Northumberland.

http://www.nsp.org.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1480 28

Environment Agency: Our Corporate Strategy for 2006-2011. Environment Agency

http://www.climatene.org.uk/



Increase public awareness of flooding. Campaigns will be supported by flood maps and be inclusive of ethnic minority and vulnerable communities.

Maintain and, where necessary, improve all 295 identified flood management systems to ensure they are all in the required condition.

Develop sustainable flood risk solutions, which benefit biodiversity, fisheries and people‟s quality of life.

2.3.7 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 2009. As noted in the North East RSS, the Environment Agency is responsible for compiling the RBMPs and they are, “…currently preparing the Northumbria River Basin Management Plan.”

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 state what measures are planned to meet these objectives.

Act as the main reporting mechanism to the European Commission.”29

The Northumbria River Basin District is one of only 2 that cross the England-Scotland border. The Environment Agency recognise that cross-border 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.”

30

The North East RSS observes that, “To ensure the planning system can positively facilitate the delivery of the (WDF) 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.”

31

2.3.8 Regional Forestry Strategy for North East England32

This strategy states the intention to, “Investigate the potential role of new and existing woodlands in helping to find solutions to flood prevention through Catchment Flood Management Plans”.

2.4 Local Plans Context

As a result of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the way in which development plans are prepared has changed. The purpose of introducing the new legislation was to assist with speeding up and simplifying the process of preparing plans and improving community involvement. Nationwide, Local Plan documents are being replaced by Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). The LDF is made up of several Local Development Documents (LDDs). LDDs can either deal with different issues or different geographical areas, but when taken together they will set out the Local Planning Authorities‟ policies for how the Local Planning Authorities will assess development proposals and direct future growth.

2.4.1 Tynedale District Council Local Planning

The government set a target for LDFs to begin to replace existing plans by March 2007. It has not been possible within this timescale to replace all current plans in their entirety however; the legislation allows for existing plans to be "saved" in whole or part and incorporated into the LDF. The saved plans will be replaced later by additions to the LDF which will bring it up to date. The

29

The Environment Agency. River Basin Planning. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/955573/1321809/?version=1&lang=_e 30

The Environment Agency. Briefing Note: Cross-border River Basin Districts and the Water Framework Directive. 2005. www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/bn_cb_2005_1184314.pdf 31

Communities and Local Government, 2002. Regional Planning Guidance for the North East, November 2002 pg108. http://www.go-ne.gov.uk/gone/docs/planning/planning_guidance.pdf 32

Regional Forestry Strategy for North-East England. 2002. North East Forestry Action Group (NEFAG).



Tynedale Local Development Framework Core Strategy was adopted in October 2007 and became part of the statutory Development Plan for Tynedale alongside the saved Local Plan policies.

Emerging Tynedale Local Development Framework

The Tynedale LDF consists of several documents and plans. Three important documents have now been adopted and are in every day use: the Statement of Community Involvement, the Core Strategy, and the Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations.

The Core Strategy33 is the over arching document of the LDF and it sets out the spatial planning strategy for the district up to 2021.

Section 3 of the Core Strategy sets out 11 “Spatial Objectives” for Tynedale. The list includes:

“To contribute to the achievement of Sustainable Development”.

“To minimise flood risk”.

Core Strategy Policy GD2 deals with the location of new development in terms of current land type and it is consistent with the Sequential and Exceptions Tests in PPS 25. GD2 states:

“When meeting development needs sites will be prioritised in the following order:

1. Previously developed land and buildings within the built up area of settlements.

2. Other suitable sites within the built up area of settlements

3. Other suitable sites adjoining the built up area of settlements”

Within each category of the sequential approach priority will be given to sites which are more accessible to services and facilities by all modes of transport, particularly public transport.”

Core Strategy GD5 deals directly with issue of flood risk. It states that:

“The potential implications for flood risk will be taken into account when meeting development needs. Developers will be expected to carry out an appropriate assessment of flood risk and development will not be permitted if it is likely to:

increase the risk of flooding; or

reduce the capacity of flood plains to store flood water; or

increase the number of people or properties at risk.”

One of the measures proposed in the Core Strategy for implementing GD5 is the completion of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

Policy BE1 sets out principals for the “Built Environment” and these include:

“Encourage sustainable construction techniques such as … the use of sustainable urban drainage systems.”

Tynedale District Local Plan – Saved Policies

The Tynedale District Local Plan is a statutory document that was adopted in April 2000 under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. September 2007 marked the deadline for the automatic saving of Policies and only certain policies continued to be saved. However many Local Plan policies are not saved because they have been superseded by the LDF Core Strategy.

The only saved policy that could be considered relevant to flood risk management is policy NE29 which states that:

“The Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency, will seek to ensure that all works in, under, over and adjacent to watercourses, and waterbodies are appropriately designed and implemented.

All proposals should be accompanied by an assessment of the likely environmental impacts of development. Culverting and diversion of watercourses will not be permitted except to enable reasonable access over a watercourse.”

33

Tynedale District Council 2007. Core Strategy. Adopted October 2007. Available from http://www.tynedale.gov.uk/residents/serviceinfo.asp?type=201



2.4.2 Northumberland National Park Authority Local Planning

As stated on the Northumberland National Park website, in preparing policy for the area the Park Authority must work to achieve the National Park Purposes and also pursue the aims set down in our Northumberland National Park Management Plan. These requirements mean that planning policy for National Parks is made in circumstances different to that of most Planning Authorities.

Emerging Northumberland National Park Local Development Framework

The National Park Authority began preparation of its Local Development Framework in September 2004. Between October and December 2007, the Park released two key documents for public consultation; these were Preferred Options for the Core Strategy34 (which includes Development Control Policies) and Preferred Options for the Land Allocations Document35.

The Core Strategy will be the over arching document of the LDF and will set out the spatial planning strategy for the Park up to 2021.

Policy 1 offered in the Core Strategy Preferred Options document is entitled “Delivering Sustainable Development” and states that:

“In order to deliver sustainable development all development proposals will be required to be accompanied by a Sustainability Statement which will demonstrate the extent to which the development:

Conserves and enhances the special qualities of the National Park.

Makes efficient use of land, materials, and infrastructure.

Provides opportunities for all to understand and enjoy the special qualities of the National Park.

Promotes the local communities economic and social well being and their ability to access to services.

Reduces the causes and impacts of climate change, particularly by maximising renewable energy generation and energy efficiency in buildings.

Demonstrates high quality design and sustainable construction.

Promotes accessibility via public transport, cycling, or walking.

Conserves scarce resources.

Conserves water resources, air, and soils.

Reduces the amount of waste produced and increases the amount recycled.

Prevents inappropriate development in flood plains.”

Policy 2 addresses some of the issues associated with Climate Change. It states that the Park Authority will:

“Support proposals which allow for the successful adaptation to the impacts of climate change by:

Locating new development in areas at least risk from flooding.

Enabling wildlife and habitats to adapt to climate change.

Maximising positive opportunities resulting from climate change.”

Policy 28 is the main policy offered that addresses the issue of Flood Risk management. It is entitled “Water and Flood Risk” and it states that:

“All development within the National Park should make the most efficient use of water and enhance the sustainable use of the water environment. The National Park Authority will require that development is protected from flooding and that appropriate measures are implemented to mitigate flood risk in line with National Planning Policy. “

34

Northumberland National Park Authority 2007. Core Strategy & Development Policies Preferred Options. Available from http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/core_strategy_preferred_options.pdf 35

Northumberland National Park Authority 2007. Land Allocations Document Preferred Options. Available from http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/land_allocations_preferred_options.pdf



Northumberland National Park Management Plan

The Northumberland National Park Authority Management Plan: 3rd

Review Framework Document was published in 2003. It states that the Authority believes that,

“…the best way to achieve National Park purposes is by putting the economy and community at the heart of our work. Working with the community and partners we aim both to achieve National Park purposes and build a more sustainable economy, one grounded in the special qualities of this National Park, notably the unspoilt natural beauty, tranquillity and cultural inheritance.”36

The document goes on to list obstacles that the Authority may face. It states:

“We will face three tests in implementing our Vision:

To convince others that we are a natural partner in rural development.

To agree with our partners how to regenerate the economy using the special qualities to the benefit of the widest community. We will seek consensus on resisting those developments which undermine the special qualities and distinctiveness.

To work in a practical way towards sustainable development in Northumberland National Park. We have begun to alter the way we work, putting more resources into rural development, setting up special funds for Action Areas, and creating schemes to help our communities and businesses to benefit from information technology. We invite others to explore this new approach with us.”

The main body of the Plan does not make any specific mention of Flood Risk Management or related issues.

Northumberland National Park Local Plan37 – Saved Policies

The Northumberland National Park Local Plan was adopted in September 1996. However, as of September 2007, only those policies which are „saved‟ and are to be carried forward into the Park Local Development framework remain statutory the other policies have expired.

Saved policy CD1 set out the Park‟s “General Development Principles” and point h. states that all development in the Park should:

“…not adversely affect the water environment, either ground or surface water, through contamination or their location in the flood plain...”

Saved policy C11 sates that:

“Development which would adversely affect watercourses and groundwater will only be permitted where the National Park Authority are satisfied that no suitable alternative site is available and that appropriate amelioration measures are undertaken to minimise the impact of development.”

2.4.3 Mid and North Northumberland National Park Strategic Flood Risk Assessment38

The Northumberland National Park encompasses portions of the local authority areas of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnwick and Tynedale. This study only encompasses the southern part of the Park that falls within the district of Tynedale. An SFRA which covers the Mid and North Park has been undertaken by Jacobs. The Mid and North Park draft SFRA was released in October 2007.

The following summarises the key findings of the report and their relationship to this study.

Surface Water

The key conclusions of the report are that fluvial flood risk in the study area is low and that vulnerability to surface water flooding is significant. Paragraph 19 of the report begins:

36

Northumberland National Park Authority 2003. Northumberland National Park Authority Management Plan: 3rd Review

Framework Document. Available from http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/nationalparkmanagementplan2.pdf 37

Northumberland National Park Authority 1996. Northumberland National Park Local Plan. Adopted September 1996. Available from http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/nationalparklocalplan.pdf 38

Jacobs. 2007. Mid and North Northumberland National Park Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. October 2007 (Final Draft).



“Throughout the National Park, the risk of flooding from rivers is generally low. Notwithstanding this however, the geology and topography of the Park means that there is a relatively high susceptibility to rapid surface water run off, resulting in flash flooding…”

This key finding agrees with those of this study for the Southern Park and the remainder of the Tynedale District. This implies that the topography is consistent across the whole area and a similar approach to flood risk should be adopted.

The report categorises the level of risk from surface water flooding across the whole of the study area. The level of risk is estimated by looking at a combination of the soil type and the rate of change of slope (based upon IfSAR data).

Climate Change

The report also identifies that water courses in the region are well defined and as a consequence, the extent of fluvial flooding is unlikely to vary significantly following the effects of climate change. Paragraph 96 concludes that:

“…adopting the pragmatic comparison between Zone 3a and Zone 2…and with due consideration to the relatively well defined topography of the area, it is clear that climate change will not markedly increase the extent of river flooding.”

A similar assessment has been carried out as part of this study for the Southern Park and remaining Tynedale District and the same conclusion reached. The additional modelling results offered in this study which predict the extent of flooding in a climate change scenario (see Map 31) provide a more robust demonstration of the hypothesis. Again, we can resolve that a similar approach to the issue can be applied across both study areas.

Ground water

Paragraph 91 states that:

“…risk of groundwater flooding in this instance is considered to be low”

This agrees with the conclusion of section B.1.8 of this report.

Drainage

Section 5.4 addresses „Local Drainage Issues‟ and states that:

“…issues of this nature are generally localised, and can often be addressed as part of the design process…”

This agrees with the strategic assumption of this study that any development will compensate for any reduction in infiltration and attenuate any surface water run off within the development site.

The report states that Northumbrian Water was contacted as part of the study process but, “…the feedback provided was very general in nature, providing simply an overview of risk locations within the Park…”. None of the data described is represented in the report. Thus far Northumbrian Water has failed to provide any feedback at all for this study.

Development

Paragraph 124 states that:

“The Northumberland National Park is responsible for ensuring that the future development within the Park is carried out in a sustainable manner. Whilst, given the unique character of the National Park, this does not involve the specific allocation of sites for housing and/or employment (i.e. planning for population growth), the existing Park community is no less susceptible to the potential risks associated with flooding than their neighbours in adjacent Districts.“

This study has included areas of Tynedale District that both fall within and outside the boundary of the Northumberland National Park. Tynedale Council has been presented with a large number of options for consideration as LDF site allocations. Because of this it may appear that areas outside of the Park have been the focus of study and that they are more vulnerable to flood risk. As discussed in the Mid and North Park SFRA, this is not the case and any apparent bias is purely due to the low level of development pressure within the Park boundaries. Several National Park areas have been considered in terms of flood risk, should there be future development pressures.

The final sentence of the Mid and North Park SFRA states that:

“It is imperative …that the SFRA is adopted as a living document and is reviewed regularly.”



This sentiment holds true for this study also.

2.4.4 Tyne CFMP

Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) are strategic plans which assess current flood risks from all forms of flooding across the whole catchment and how those risks may change in the long-term (50 to 100 years). These plans consider relevant multiple sustainability objectives, when exploring and appraising various potential policies for sustainable FRM. They then indicate appropriate FRM policies help operating authorities to understand the scale and extent of current and future flooding problems before taking key decisions on land use, production of strategies and plans, and investment in flood risk management projects or actions to protect existing and future communities.

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 those traditionally used for flood defence to reflect the full range of management options available to operating authorities.

More sustainable approaches to managing flood risk include:

Maximising the opportunities for restoring floodplains.

Improved land management and changes of land use.

Adopting integrated urban drainage approaches.

Wider use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS).

Targeted and accurate flood forecasting and warning.

Improving resilience to flooding and the resistance of individual properties.

Incorporating climate change adaptation strategies in local authority plans.

Relocating assets out of the floodplain where possible.

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. A clear planning framework for all operating authorities to engage in has been produced by the Environment Agency and this is shown below.

The area of Tynedale is located in the Tyne Catchment. The Tyne‟s two main tributaries of the Rivers North and South Tyne both cross the district area, the source of the former being located on the district‟s boarder with Scotland just upstream of Kielder Reservoir. The River Derwent, which is a secondary tributary to the River Tyne, flows along the district boundary with Derwentside and originates in Derwent Reservoir.

The Tyne CFMP is currently at Draft Main Stage, and flood risk management policies have been proposed for specific areas of the catchment (policy units). The CFMP is programmed for completion in mid-late 2008 and is likely to be revised on a 5 yearly basis. The CFMP will involve a programme of consultation whereby stakeholders will be given the opportunity to comment and input into the findings, catchment objectives and policies.

The Tyne CFMP has been split into seven policy units, two of which cover the Gateshead SFRA. Each Policy unit has a unique strategic vision towards managing flood risk and sets out a number of draft actions, indicators and targets for the area identified in Figure 2-1.

Policy Units include:

1. Hexham and Acomb

2. Don

3. North Tyne and Rede

4. Main Tyne inc. Warden and Haydon Bridge

5. Derwent and Rural Team

6. Lower Tyne

7. South Tyne



A number of the key draft policy actions for the policy units influences the Gateshead Borough are outlined below in Table 2-1.

Figure 2-1: Tyne CFMP Policy Units

Source: Tyne CFMP (2008) Draft Main Stage Summary Report June 2008



Table 2-1 Tyne CFMP Draft Actions

Derwent & Rural Team Lower Tyne

Removal of flood defences at a regional scale. However, to continue providing and maintaining flood defences in Blackhall Mill and Lintzford.

Continue providing the current level of flood risk in the policy unit. Increase level of protection in future if the level of flood risk increases.

No active flood risk management actions. Continue with current amount of channel maintenance.

Ensure any new development fully complies with PPS25.

Ensure any new development fully complies with PPS25.

Improve resilience to flooding. Improve resilience to flooding.

Increase public awareness. Increase public awareness.

Work with landowners and EA partners to promote sustainable land management practices in order to reduce the amount of runoff, the rate of runoff and erosion.

Undertake a detailed study to identify the level of flood risk in the policy unit and implement recommendations.

Source: Tyne CFMP (2008) Draft Main Stage Summary Report June 2008

2.5 Balanced Sustainable Approach

This need for growth and economic development presents both opportunities and challenges for flood risk management. The LPA‟s should provide appropriate weight to flood risk alongside other sustainable development factors and where, for wider sustainable development reasons, development proceeds in high flood risk areas. PPS 25 requires that new development should be made safe and not increase flood risk elsewhere.

Having regard to the vulnerability of the site (e.g. residential use, offices, manufacturing etc.) and the nature of the flood hazard (e.g. slow/fast flowing and/or shallow/deep flood water etc.), and with careful planning, appropriate design and layout; developments can meet these requirements. Site use, topography, flood levels, flood defences, floor levels and various mitigation measures are key factors that should be brought together in the flood risk assessment to determine the appropriateness of the development.

Balancing and appropriately weighing key sustainable development factors including flood risk can deliver sustainable growth whist reducing overall flood risks to people and property. Further guidance on flood risk avoidance, substitution and mitigation and the Sequential and Exception Tests required by PPS 25 is provided in Section 3 of this report.



3 RISK BASED APPROACH TO STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF 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 flooded area. 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 for flood risk to 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 flood defence as it is now widely recognised that whilst we can‟t always prevent flooding occurring we can manage the risks of it happening and reduce the consequences when flooding does happen.

Flood-risk management aims to reduce flood risks through a variety on measures including:

Ensuring planning activities locate vulnerable land uses away from high flood risk areas.

Constructing and maintaining appropriately designed surface water sewers and culverts.

Using temporary and demountable flood defences and various flood prevention systems to buildings.

Constructing new flood defences and improving and maintaining existing defences.

Constructing weirs, sluices and other flood flow control structures.

Providing flood warning and emergency planning activities in flood risk areas.

This section contains a review of the SFRA process. It summarises how the suitability of potential development sites can be determined, in terms of flood risk, by Sequential and Exceptions Testing.

This section contains information and guidance on: summary of the risk based approach, delineation of flood risk zones, flood risk vulnerability classification, principles of the sequential and exception tests and an example of site classification.

including requirements for Sequential and Exceptions Testing.

Key messages:

We cannot prevent flood risk but can manage it and reduce the risk to people and property.

Flood risks are increasing due to the impacts of climate change.

Continuing to build and improve flood defences will become increasingly more costly and difficult to achieve in the future.

Focus of activity and effort needs to move from flood defence to flood risk management. The SFRA is a planning tool that can be used to inform the spatial planning and development management process.

Opportunities for management actions to avoid, substitute and/or mitigate flood risk can be taken at all levels of the planning process and for all development types in all locations.

Only on completion of the Sequential Test should the Exception Test be used to justify allocations or developments in high risk areas. However the Exceptions Test must not be used as a tool to place inappropriate development in high risk areas.

Sequential Testing and, where appropriate, Exception Testing, should be applied as soon as possible to all Local Development Document (LDD) allocations for development and all planning applications.



Generally raising awareness of flood risks amongst vulnerable communities.

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 actually avoid 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 of Avoidance, followed by Substitution of lower vulnerability uses where avoidance is not possible and, only if avoidance and substitution are not possible, Mitigation of the risks through a variety of techniques. 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 Background to Strategic Flood Risk Management Objectives

Historically, the management of flood risk was undertaken in a somewhat reactive manner, addressing problems on an as-needed basis in response to flooding events. It was recognised by Government that this approach was generally not cost effective and often failed to consider individual problem areas within the wider river system.

To address this, the Environment Agency is committed to a rolling programme of flood risk mapping and strategic flood risk management investigations. These include Catchment Flood Management Plans and Flood Risk Management (PAG2) Strategies within fluvial systems and Shoreline Management Plans (SMP) within coastal areas.

These studies take a catchment-wide approach to flood risk. They identify where flooding is known or perceived to be an existing problem and consider how flooding regimes are likely to alter as a result of climate and land use changes. The studies aim to understand the mechanism of flooding in an area and include assessments of how flooding can be cost effective and sustainably managed over the next 50 to 100 years. These investigations also pay particular attention to the environmental implications of flood risk management and seek to provide opportunities for environmental enhancement wherever possible.

The importance of influencing both the strategic planning process and development control, by preventing development within flood risk areas, is recognised as a key Environment Agency objective. For this reason it is vital that the recommendations of the SFRA are consistent with the long-term strategy for flood risk management in the study areas.

3.2.1 Context of an SFRA

The SFRA is a planning tool that can be used to inform the spatial planning process. The information provided in the SFRA should allow the LPA to carryout the Sequential Test.

In accordance with PPS 25, allocations should be directed outside of the flood risk areas (i.e. in Zone 1) wherever possible. If there are no reasonably appropriate Flood Zone 1 sites available for development then, subject to flood risk vulnerability, consideration maybe given to sites within Zone 2. Only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 1 or 2 should Zone 3 allocations be considered. In order to demonstrate that there are no lower risk sites available the Sequential Test needs to be carried out.

An SFRA is a project with defined start and end points. The deliverable is a tool to allow the sequential testing to take place within the LDF. The SFRA itself cannot determine where additional replacement sites in low risk areas can be found, nor what the exceptional planning considerations are that promotes the use of the Exception. The SFRA assumes that a planning justification can be found and the sites are tested on that basis. Where the flood risks are significant and the land use not compatible the SFRA can conclude early and apply the first level of the flood risk management hierarchy and avoid development in that area.

Through the SFRA, the LPA's have the information and options to sequentially test sites and where necessary provide more detailed evidence to support the Exception Test. It is intended that the SFRA is used to identify more appropriate sites for development, in terms of flood risk.

The SFRA provides some indication of deliverability, and hence whether the site should be considered in more detail.

3.3 The Risk Assessment Process

At its highest level the SFRA assesses the spatial flood probability across the study areas allowing the Sequential Test to be undertaken. Within defended floodplains where individual allocations



have the potential to alter the risks significantly, leading to significant residual risks, the Sequential Test requires a more detailed assessment of probability and consequences.

Floodplains provide storage and attenuation for the river system. Any major changes to the floodplain must, therefore, also consider the impact to the river system as a whole.

The assessment of flood risk within the study area should be targeted where development is proposed within current planning horizons. Furthermore, the confidence placed in the SFRA, with respect to the delineation of flood risk, should be sufficient so that it may be used to inform the future allocation of sites within the Local Development Framework.

Risk is defined as a function of both probability of an event occurring and the consequence should that event take place. When considering the actual risk associated with the failure of a flood defence, consideration must be given to both overtopping and the structural integrity of the defence. The consequence of defence failure, both economically and physically, is largely a function of the intended land use. For example, the vulnerability of residential areas to flooding is considered greater than flooding to industrial or commercial developments. Similarly, the risk to a residential home is considered greater than the risk to a renovated mill where the ground floor level is not likely to be used for residential accommodation. PPS 25 (Annex G) identifies the importance of safely managing residual flood risks. Residual risks have been identified in paragraph G1 as “the risk remaining after applying the sequential approach and taking mitigating actions” including the residual risks involved with development behind existing defences and other infrastructure acting as a flood defence.

Paragraph G2 of PPS 25 states “…development should not normally be permitted where flood defences, properly maintained and in combination with agreed warning and evacuation arrangements, would not provide an acceptable standard of safety taking into account climate change.”

Taking this into account, an assessment must be made to determine whether an existing defence is high enough to provide the 1% standard of protection. A structural assessment will also be required. If the condition or suitability of a defence is in doubt the proposed development should be given less weight than other available sites within appropriately defended areas.

To assess actual risk, it may be necessary to model the consequence of overtopping in a 1% chance event. Generally, the worst case scenario will coincide with a failure of the defences at the peak of the flood event. To this end, a two dimensional inundation model (which has the ability to predict depth and velocity) of the defended area may be required to examine the impact of either a breach failure or overtopping during the design event. The extent of inundation behind the defence should be identified, and the depth and velocity of flow (within the inundated area) monitored over time throughout the duration of the event. Other infrastructure such as road, rail embankments and other existing transport infrastructure should also be considered in the same context, as they can affect water flows during floods.

3.4 The Risk Based Sequential Approach: Overview

PPS 25 provides the basis for the sequential approach. PPS 25 recommends that LPAs and other decision-makers use a risk based approach to development planning and specifies the need for undertaking an SFRA to inform the preparation of its LDDs.

Key management measures for development can be expressed as:

Avoidance - prevent inappropriate development using the suite of FRAs at different planning levels;

Substitution - swap more vulnerable development types with alternatives more compatible with periodic flooding; and

Mitigation - implement measures to reduce flood frequency (e.g. upstream storage), to protect receptors (e.g. flood protection barriers) and to manage residual risks.

When allocating or approving land for development in flood risk areas, those responsible for making development decisions are expected to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternative development sites located in lower flood risk areas.

The sequential approach to flood risk is all embracing and should be adopted at the earliest opportunity, and at all levels of the planning process. Flooding from all sources should be



considered and it is helpful to break flood risk down into the basic components of source, pathway and receptor as described in Section 5.3.

The risk based sequential approach requires:

Strategic avoidance of adding to the sources.

Managing flood pathways to reduce the likelihood of flooding.

Reducing the adverse consequences of flooding to receptors by avoiding inappropriate development.

Key elements of this approach are:

Management actions taken at all levels of the planning process for all land uses in all locations.

Identification of designated flood zones.

Vulnerability classifications for certain land uses.

Appropriate flood risk assessment at regional, strategic and site levels.

Sequential consideration of first avoiding, then substituting and then mitigating flood risk. This applies throughout the whole risk based approach, at all levels and stages of planning and for all land uses and sizes of development.

Sequential Test to seek compatibility between proposed land use and it‟s vulnerability to flooding.

Exception Test where necessary, to ensure sustainability.

To be able to deliver the sequential approach, many flood risk factors need to be brought together in an appropriate FRA as detailed later in this Section. Figure 3-1 below shows the key elements of the approach.

Figure 3-1 Overview of Risk Based Sequential Approach

Working through Figure 3-1 above it can be seen that management actions to avoid substitute and/or mitigate flood risk, along with the need to do all that is possible to ensure compatibility of land use with PPS 25 flood zones, embrace the approach. It is usually the case that opportunities to enable some avoidance, substitution and mitigation of flood risk can be created at many, if not all stages of the process and these opportunities should be taken. Once an appropriate SFRA has been completed this allows the important stages of the Sequential Test, and where necessary the Exception Test to be carried out. The Sequential Test is used to prioritise sites in order of probability to flooding and their acceptability in terms of development and the Exception Test



ensures the development is sustainable and remains safe. Appropriate policies, allocations and conditions etc. can then be used in the planning process to secure appropriate and sustainable development. More information on all these key elements now follows.

A further level of analysis may be required after applying the sequential approach in order to test the sustainability and robustness of the mitigation measures, known as the residual risks. These include areas where development is planned behind or adjacent to existing defences.

This SFRA provides the Planning Authorities with flood zone classifications for all present locations identified for development as well as the information required to classify future allocations. The information provided by the SFRA will assist the Planning Authorities to develop its LDF and prioritise allocations.

The Planning Authorities will be required to prioritise the allocation of land for development in ascending order from Flood Risk Zone 1 to 3, including the subdivisions of Flood Risk Zone 3. The Environment Agency has statutory responsibility and must be consulted on all development allocations and site applications within medium and high risk zones, including those in areas with critical drainage problems and for any development on land exceeding 1 hectare outside flood risk areas. Within the LDF process, the Environment Agency will require the Planning Authority to demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternatives, in lower flood risk categories, available for development. This is normally written up in document to support the planning justification for sites carried forward to allocation and reviewed in the Examination in Public. In site applications not previously assessed within the SFRA the Environment Agency may object in principle, and may result in the site not being delivered. This reinforces the need for a thorough and transparent execution of the sequential approach.

3.4.1 The Risk Based Sequential Approach: Step by Step

A Sequential Flood Risk Test is used to prioritise sites in order of probability to flooding and their acceptability in terms of development. Sequential testing of sites should be undertaken early in the planning process so that more vulnerable development and development in higher flood risk areas are avoided.

If allocations are required at a future date the Planning Authority will be required to prioritise land for development in ascending order from Flood Risk Zones 1 to 3. Where development is located within medium flood risk zone (Zone 2) or high flood risk zone (Zone 3) the Environment Agency (EA) will require the Planning Authority to demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternatives for development in lower flood risk zones. Those proposing development will need to provide the Planning Authority with justification for Sequential Testing.

The information provided in the SFRA allows the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to carry out the Sequential Test.



Figure 3-2 Sequentially led Flood Risk Assessment

3.5 Delineation of the Flood Risk Zones

The first pass of the Sequential Test uses the Environment Agency‟s published Flood Zone Maps to identify areas at low, medium and high flood risk. These areas correspond to Flood Risk Zones 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The Environment Agency‟s Flood Zone Maps provide an overview of areas considered susceptible to flood risk in the study area as a result of fluvial and tidal flooding. The Flood Zone Maps have been prepared in a consistent manner across the whole of the UK and provide an estimation of the extent of flooding for both the 1% and 0.1% events.

PPS 25 divides the country into three basic flood zones, Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3, corresponding to areas of low, medium and high flood risk, respectively. The flood zones are based on the Environment Agency‟s Flood Zone Maps (see in Appendix C: -1 for full descriptions of all the flood zones under PPS 25). Therefore they refer to the probability of flooding from rivers, the sea and tidal sources (where appropriate) and ignore the presence of existing defences, because these can be breached, overtopped and may not be in existence for the lifetime of the development.

3.5.1 Delineation of Low Risk Zone 1

PPS 25 considers areas within Flood Zone 1 to be at low risk to flooding. The annual probability of flooding within this zone is less than 0.1% or can be easily defined as areas located outside either Flood Zone 2 or 3.

Generally there is no constraint to development, in terms of flood risk, within Flood Zone 1 although, to stay in line with Environment Agency Standing Advice, any development over 1 ha should be accompanied by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment. Localised drainage arrangements should be discussed and consideration of drainage needs to ensure that development will be safe and there will be no increase in flood risk elsewhere.



3.5.2 Delineation of Medium Risk Zone 2

PPS 25 considers areas within Flood Zone 2 to be at medium risk of flooding. The annual probability of fluvial flooding within this zone is between 0.1% and 1% (or between 0.5% and 0.1% for tidal flooding). In general, Flood Zone 2 is considered suitable for most development except highly vulnerable land uses where the Exception Test is required, such as police stations, fire stations and ambulance stations.

However a risk-based assessment of allocations within Zone 2 must be undertaken. Although more vulnerable land uses such as hospitals, residential institutions and residential development are permitted in Flood Zone 2, it will be extremely important that detailed Flood Risk Assessments are carried out. These will need to clearly quantify actual flood risk, show that there is safe access and egress and show that any residual risk can be safely managed, especially when development is in the form of hospitals. Consideration of local drainage issues will also be required.

3.5.3 Delineation of High Risk Zone 3

PPS 25 considers areas within Flood Zone 3 to be at high risk of flooding. PPS 25 defines High Risk Flood Zone 3 as two sub-zones 3a and 3b, which corresponded to high probability flooding and the functional floodplain.

Flood Zone 3a: High Probability. In accordance with Table D.1 of PPS 25 “This zone comprises land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (.1%) or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year.”

Flood Zone 3b: The Functional Floodplain. In accordance with Table D.1 of PPS 25 “This zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood”

3.5.4 Delineation of the Functional Floodplain

Although PPS 25 considers the Functional Floodplain as areas compromising land within Flood Zone 3 where water has to flow or be stored in times of flooding, SFRAs have received the responsibility of identifying Flood Zone 3b.

PPS 25 has suggested the 5% annual probability flood event for the baseline of a Functional Floodplain, however a larger probability could be used where appropriate depending on catchment characteristics and on agreement between the LPA and the Environment Agency.

SFRAs also have the ability to identify where it might be appropriate to extend the 5% (or higher) flood outline to areas within Flood Zone 2 and 3 to restore or expand the Functional Floodplain. The ability to identify and safeguard large enough areas against redevelopment and development in both urban and rural areas means that open space can be used for flood storage, effectively reducing flood risk downstream. This process targets Zone 3 policy aims, identified in table D.1 in PPS 25, which include:

“Reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area through the layout and form or the development and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage systems,” and:

“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.”

The SFRA should be fully integrated with Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and other Strategies that show, at catchment scale, the need to protect the floodplain and preclude development in high flood risk areas.

The extension of Functional Floodplain as part of PPS 25 should be viewed as contributing to sustainable flood management. Safeguarding those areas that would have been used as potential areas for compensation in the past in order to justify developing in inappropriate high flood risk areas is valuable outcome of an SFRA. This can provide greater scope for natural enhancement of floodplains to protect existing flood risk areas.

In many cases the extent of natural floodplain brought into use during a 5% annual probability flood event is very similar to that used in a 1% event. Differences observed and recorded are usually in terms of increased depth and speed of flow and this is dependent on the topography and shape of land on which water flows in Tynedale.

Acknowledging these specific topographical characterisations of Tynedale and in recognition of PPS 25 para 3.17, the 1% flood extent, in the first instance, has been mapped in preference to 5%



flood outline and this is considered as Functional Floodplain. Whilst it is generally accepted that undeveloped land that floods between a 5% event and a 1% event can be considered as potential green infrastructure, it is the approach of retaining the flood management capabilities of such areas in a proactive manner which is crucial to the concept of this SFRA and for current a future sustainability.

In keeping with the recommendations of PPS 25 areas already benefiting from defences or those which are developed have not been considered as Functional Floodplain. Major transport infrastructure e.g. motorways and railways have also been excluded from functional floodplain areas, as well as the removal of „dry islands‟ in conjunction with the „size standards used‟ within the Environment Agency SFRM Specification for Flood Risk Mapping. However, where a site is being redeveloped a thorough review should be undertaken to assess whether some of the previous functional floodplain that may have been lost in the original development, or those areas which are designated as sacrificial areas, such as car parks should be retained.

It has been acknowledged that there are some inaccuracies on minor watercourses, in particular non-main rivers due to scale and misalignment. Therefore as it is critical that the outline for the functional floodplain is as accurate as possible, those areas which are designated as functional floodplain using the above technique but fall on non-main rivers have been removed.

However, whilst these areas are not necessarily defined as functional floodplain within this SFRA, unmapped low lying undeveloped land upstream of major communities should be given priority as potential green infrastructure through planning decisions allowing for the potential for a reduction of flood risk to that community during large fluvial events.)

Conversely, there should be recognition that due to scale and mapping difficulties there may be critical functional floodplain of a 5% frequency in close proximity to small watercourses that is not able to be mapped. Therefore it is important this is assessed in more detail at a site-specific FRA level.

The SFRA should be fully integrated with CFMPs and other Strategies that show, at catchment scale, the need to protect the floodplain and avoid inappropriate development in high flood risk areas.

3.5.5 Implications for the SFRA

The flood zones for this SFRA have been defined in accordance with PPS 25 and the allocated and potential development areas have been classified accordingly.

Low lying undeveloped land within flood zone 3 upstream of major communities has been given priority as extended Functional Floodplains, allowing for a reduction of flood risk to that community during large fluvial events, while developed land subject to flooding has been left as Flood Zone 3a.

3.5.6 Implications of the Exception Test for the SFRA

The introduction of the Exception Test in PPS 25 does not negate the need to apply the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test must be applied prior to application of the Exception Test to demonstrate that there are no available sites in areas of lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate for the purported development. Application of the Sequential Test should reduce the number of sites where it will be necessary to apply the Exception Test, thus reducing Planning Authority costs.

The policies formulated as part of the SFRA will need to consider the Exception Test and will inform, if not form, the draft criteria-based policies against which planning applications will be considered. This increases the importance of consultation with the Environment Agency as statuary consultees and obtaining their approval of the policies through the SFRA.

The focus of an SFRA is the Sequential Test but this study will aim to provide information to inform part c of the Exception Test. The SFRA will provide high level information on the probability of mitigation measures being feasible and which measures should be employed. This should provide a broad identification of those areas which are most likely to pass clause c of the Exception Test and those that will probably not.

In previous SFRAs the sites identified for consideration have been assessed in terms of sustainability and flood risk. Because of PPS 25 this has been extended to include consideration of whether application of the Exception Test is required / appropriate and whether it is likely this will be passed in terms of flood risk i.e. is likely to pass part c. It is not for the SFRA to assess whether



the site will pass parts a. and b. of the Exception Test. This will need to be done separately as part of the spatial planning process.

Once the Planning Authority has identified areas within the high risk zone, which after application of the Sequential Test need to be retained, they will need to commission a detailed Flood Risk Assessment to pass parts c. of the Exception Test. The SFRA cannot provide this level of site specific information.

3.6 The Sequential Test – a sieving process

The SFRA provides a framework to undertake both the Sequential and Exception Tests as part of the sequential approach. The PPS 25 Sequential Test “sieving” process focuses on considering flood risk, and if required, its mitigation through each tier. The process can involve creating long lists of „reasonably available land‟ and then comparing all of these sites to flood maps in the SFRA, and explaining in detail why certain areas in the District can or cannot be appropriately developed.

A key element of the sieving process is to minimise the number of development proposals that need to be subjected to the Exception Test and then to estimate the likely outcome of those that do. This is to do all that is possible at the SFRA stage to ensure cost effective use of time and resources as well as to avoid inappropriate development in flood risk areas.

This process is achieved using a hierarchical approach to risk management by first avoiding the risk wherever possible, then, if this cannot be done, substituting it for a less vulnerable land use and then finally incorporate mitigation measures to reduce flood risk to people and property. The principle of the sequential test sieving process embracing the Sequential and Exception Tests is shown in Figure 3-3 below.



Figure 3-3 Sequential Test Sieving Process

Table Notes: EI = Essential Infrastructure, HV = Highly Vulnerable, MV = More Vulnerable, LV = Less Vulnerable, WC = Water Compatable

The Sequential Test sieving process comprises seven key stages, designed to “sieve out” the development allocations at an early stage that may be considered inappropriate in accordance with PPS 25 and where the Exception Test is required are unlikely to meet the flood risk management requirements. A key element of the sieving process is to minimise the number of development proposals needing to be subjected to the Exception Test and then to estimate the likely outcome of those that do. This is to do all that is possible at the SFRA stage to ensure cost effective use of time and resources and to avoid inappropriate development in flood risk areas in accordance with PPS 25. As previously shown in Figure 3-1, this is achieved using a hierarchical approach to risk management, by first avoiding the risk wherever possible, then if this cannot be done, substituting it for a less vulnerable land use and then finally incorporate mitigation measures to reduce flood risk to people and property both on the site and elsewhere.



Having completed the Sequential Test the Exception Test aims to provide a method of managing flood risk whilst still allowing necessary development to occur in the interests of sustainable development.

3.7 Stepwise sequentially applied search

3.7.1 Sites within Zone 1

From a flood risk perspective all land uses are acceptable within Flood Zone 1. Flood risk is not considered to be a significant constraint to development and all land uses listed below are appropriate in this zone

Essential infrastructure

Highly vulnerable

More vulnerable

Less vulnerable

Water compatible development.

A Flood Risk Assessment will not usually be required for development in this zone unless there are, for example, historical records of localised flooding or site specific considerations that necessitate further investigation.

However, due to their potential impact on the local flood risk, a Flood Risk Assessment will be required for all developments greater than one hectare 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 Environment Agency will be able to advise potential developers as to their specific requirements on a site by site basis.


Subject to the application of the Sequential Flood Risk Test, PPS 25 specifies suitable types of development in this zone as:


More vulnerable

Less vulnerable

Water compatible development.

Highly vulnerable uses should only be permitted in this zone if the Exception Test is passed. It is not for the SFRA to assess whether the site will pass parts A. and B. of the Exception Test. However, the Planning Authority 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, Flood Risk Assessments will 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 undertaken when the planning justification for development has been clearly established.




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 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 Planning Authority and the Environment Agency as to the specific requirements for assessment.

Flood Zone 3 is subdivided into Zones 3a and 3b. All of Zone 3 is considered to be at high risk of flooding. Zone 3b is part of the floodplain that provides for natural or managed attenuation of flood water. Zone 3a areas are considered to be all other areas within Zone 3. All Flood Zone 3 areas should be considered Zone 3b until proven otherwise. Urban areas are generally considered to be Zone 3a, so for the purpose of this SFRA, Brownfield sites will be assumed Zone 3a. However, care should be taken as, for example, car parks located within urban areas may also provide a valuable flood attenuation function. In this instance a Flood Zone 3b classification should be considered.

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 water-compatible uses may be permitted.

Where sites are partially located within Flood Zone 3, it is recommended that the Planning Authority should avoid development by specifying water compatible uses or Public Open Space for these areas.

3.7.4 How to assess the likelihood of passing the Exception Test

The fact that mitigation measures are discussed in this SFRA should not be taken as a presumption that the Sequential Risk Test has been short circuited. It is included to give improved understanding of the consequences associated with allocation of a site for development, or assessing development proposals on a site in high risk areas. It is also used to provide additional indicative evidence for assessment of the Exception Test.

Mitigation measures must be designed to provide an appropriate level of flood mitigation to a site for the lifetime of the development. At most sites it is technically feasible to mitigate or manage flood risk (if potential off-site impacts are ignored). However, where the depth of flooding is substantial, these mitigation measures may result in practical constraints to development with significant financial implications. The Exception Test needs to explicitly understand offsite impacts of development as well as the limiting factors that influence flood risk.

Often the determining factor in deciding whether a particular development can proceed is the financial cost of flood risk mitigation rather than technical limitations. It is important that recommendations for allocation should not be made when there is little or no chance of feasible and cost effective mitigation measures being realised. Demonstrating that a site can be developed is, however, difficult without a detailed Flood Risk Assessment.

At the SFRA stage broad assumptions need to be made about the of flood risk mitigation so that sites with realistic development potential are put forward. In this context the assumptions shown in the following table have been made. It is assumed that floor level raising will continue to be the traditional mitigation measure, however, it should be noted that the Environment Agency consider land raising to be a final option rather than a desired approach to flood risk management.

Table 3-1 refers to indicative depths of flooding before mitigation measures are put in place and should not be mistaken for acceptable levels of flooding after mitigation.



Table 3-1 Suggested Screening Criteria for Mitigation Measures

Depth of Inundation* Comments

0 to 1.0 m Sustainable mitigation and flood risk management may be feasible for both housing and employment purposes. There is a greater likelihood that the Exception Test can be passed.

1.0 to 1.5 m Mitigation is likely to be costly and may not be economically justifiable for low value land uses. Housing allocations are considered appropriate, provided flood risk can be managed or mitigated (e.g. by using lower levels for car parks or public areas). Floor level raising for employment purposes is unlikely to be economically viable and employment developments should be reconsidered in favour of alternative lower risk sites. The likelihood of passing the Exception Test is lower.

Above 1.5 m Flood risk mitigation measures are unlikely to be economically justifiable and both housing and employment allocations should be reconsidered in favour of alternative lower risk sites. Development is unlikely to be sustainable and the likelihood of passing the Exception Test is low.

Table Notes: * Based on predicted depth of inundation for the 1% (Fluvial) event + 20% additional flow for Climate Change as per PPS 25. Environment Agency flood zone data.

It is recognised that in some locations urban regeneration and redevelopment will be essential to maintain the long term viability and vitality of communities and the balance of planning considerations may support redevelopment. These social and economic considerations may justify a relaxation of the screening criteria set out above and the retention of housing and employment sites in certain areas. In these instances the commercial viability of the development and risks to public safety will need to be given careful consideration during the planning of the development. A range of flood management and flood proofing measures are available that can reduce the financial impacts of flooding. Other screening factors, such as access and egress to a site, multiple sources of flooding, availability of flood warning procedures and flood warning awareness should also be considered.

Whilst flooding mitigation measures can be implemented in most sites, it is worth noting that in some instances the findings of individual Flood Risk Assessments may determine that the risk of flooding to a proposed development is too great and mitigation measures are not feasible. In these instances, the development will be subject to an objection by the Environment Agency.

3.7.5 General points for consideration by the Planning Authorities

To assist Development Planners in evaluating the suitability of planning submissions in terms of flood risk, and in accordance with Section 1.48 of the Practice Guide Companion to PPS 25, a copy of the Environment Agency‟s framework for transparent application of the Sequential Test for planning submissions is included as Appendix D.

In accordance with Section 1.14 of the Practice Guide Companion to PPS 25, guidance for developers from pre-purchase to submission of a completed planning application and accompanying FRA is also included as Appendix D. This guidance provides a mechanism for developers and LPAs as to the requirements and procedures to be followed when determining the suitability of a site for development.

In order to evaluate sites for development allocation, the Planning Authorities may consider the following:

Sites put forward for development should be assessed against the SFRA flood maps. Sites should be selected at lower risk of flooding in preference to higher risk areas. Developers will need to provide sufficient information to enable the Planning Authority to assess a Sequential Test which will demonstrate that there are no reasonably available, alternative sites that are situated in a lower flood risk zone. Where phased development is planned, Sequential Testing should be used to identify those areas where development should be discouraged or avoided.

Departures from the Sequential Flood Risk Test involving the need for development in higher risk zones need to be justified. A developer, in discussion with LPA, will need to provide reasoned justification to the LPA wherever the Exception Test needs to be applied.



The SFRA is a strategic review of flood risk, based on existing available information and does not provide the site specific consideration of flood risk and mitigation measures required of a Flood Risks Assessment. The developer will need to undertake a detailed Flood Risk Assessment to address relevant parts of the Exceptions Test.

The developable area may further be reduced by the need for a maintenance easement where there is a watercourse within or adjacent to a site. Typically a 5m access strip, void of development, is required along the bank top for maintenance purposes. This is likely to reduce the available developable area.

When considering granting planning permission for residential development in Flood Zone 3, the council should be aware that passing the Exception Test is likely to be harder and applications are likely to be opposed by the Environment Agency. Any development planned within Flood Zone 3 will require a Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that development is sustainable and flood risk can be effectively managed.

Where development sites encroach into Flood Zone 3, the Planning Authority should consider specifying that Flood Zone 3 areas should only be developed as water compatible uses or Public Open Space.

Consideration of surface water flooding and the use of SUDs should be made at a catchment wide level. A strategy for the management of surface water at a strategic level will provide a more effective management solution rather than relying on individual solutions for development.

A site specific Flood Risk Assessment should consider the sources of flooding. If flood risk is fluvial then mitigation measures will be required to compensate for loss of floodplain storage. Depending on the extent of flooding, mitigation measure in these instances may significantly reduce the developable area. Consideration should also be given to the likely impact of development elsewhere. For example, surface water drainage from greenfield development is likely to increase flood risk to neighbouring developments unless surface water drainage is effectively managed.

The determination of acceptability remains with the LPA, and will draw upon the advice of the EA and the Emergency Planning officer.

Before the submission of a planning application, if a site is considered to be critical to regeneration, the Planning Authority should opt to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment (including sequential and, where necessary, exceptions tests) in order to first justify the sustainability of individual development sites.

3.7.6 The ongoing process

The SFRA procedure is seen as an ongoing process and doesn‟t end with the final report. The above step-by-step approach can be undertaken, with the support of GIS data provided, to identify future suitable areas for development. The Sequential Flood Risk Test can then be used to prioritise these sites in order of probability to flood risk and their acceptability in terms of allocation for development.

Along with the final report, GIS data can be constantly updated, providing an evolving tool in identifying suitable development sites, located in lower flood risk areas.

Improvements to the National Flood Zone Map are likely and the Planning Authorities will need to periodically update the mapping to include the EA‟s best available data.

3.7.7 Roles and Responsibilities

Principle responsibilities for flood risk management lay with “Operating Authorities”. These are:

The Environment Agency; and

Local Authorities.

The Environment Agency is the principal flood defence operating authority in England. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environment Agency has permissive powers for the management of flood risk arising from designated Main Rivers and the sea. It is also responsible for flood forecasting and flood warning dissemination, and for exercising a general supervision over matters relating to flood defence. In order to carry out these functions, the Environment Agency through



Regional Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs) has various statutory powers including the following to:

Maintain or improve any watercourses which are designed as Main Rivers;

Maintain or improve any sea or tidal defences;

Install and operate flood warning equipment;

Control actions by riparian owners and occupiers which might interfere with the free flow of watercourses; and

Supervise internal drainage boards.

The Environment Agency has recently gained responsibility for a strategic overview of the coast and may also soon adopt a similar role for all inland flood risk. The RFDCs are required to take an interest in all flood matters in their area and in particular to take decisions about the annual programmes of improvement and maintenance work to be carried out by the Environment Agency.

Local Authorities have certain permissive powers to undertake flood defence works under the Land Drainage Act 1991, on watercourses which have not been designated as Main Rivers and which are not within Internal Drainage Board areas. Local authorities can control the culverting of watercourses under s263 of the Public Health Act 1936. With regard to PPS 25 and land use planning activities, flood risk is a material consideration in planning terms and the LPA has responsibility to control development both in the floodplain, where it may be directly affected by flooding or affect flooding elsewhere, and elsewhere in river catchments, where changes in runoff characteristics may increase flooding downstream. It is also empowered, as the Highway Authority, to construct, maintain or cleanse drainage systems in the highway or on adjoining/nearby land, for the purpose of drainage or prevention of surface water on the highway as contained in the Highways Act 1980.

In addition, Highway Authorities and Sewerage Undertakers have flood risk management responsibilities principally in respect of maintaining appropriate road and surface water drainage systems to limit flooding.

The roles and responsibilities of the Developer and the LPA are described in Sections 1.4 to 1.53 of the Practice Guide Companion to PPS 25. This guidance has been reproduced as Appendix D of this SFRA.

3.7.8 Example site classification with explanatory comments

The location of each site or area, identified for consideration by the Planning Authorities, is included on the plans that accompany this report. Available information for each site is also summarised in the appropriate Site Classification tables in Appendix A. Comparison of the various site classification tables demonstrates which locations are more suitable for development in terms of vulnerability to flooding. An example Site Classification table, including explanatory comments, is included below.

Site Classification Explanatory comments

Site Name: Capel Cottage Site name taken from policy documents provided.

Size (ha): 0.36 Site footprint in hectares

Reference: SA063 Site reference taken from policy documents provided.

Development Status at March 2008:

Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

Site development status as informed by the Planning Authority.

Land use as suggested by proposer of site:

Housing Potential development type as indicated by policy documents provided.

Catchment: River Tyne Identifies the primary source of flood risk

Flood Zones: FZ1 61% FZ2 4% FZ3a 36% Each site is categorised according to the current National Flood Zones. In this case, 36% of the site is located within the high risk Flood Zone 3a, 3% is located in the medium risk Flood Zone 2 and 61% is in Flood Zone 1.

The Climate Change figure presents the percentage area of the site that falls within the 1% (Fluvial) event + 20% additional flow for Climate Change.

FZ3b 0% Climate Change

44%

Indicative depth of Average <1.0 Maximum >1.5 Depth predictions for the 1%AEP event including 20%




Inundation (m) increase in flows for climate change.

The average depth is taken across the area that is predicted to flood only i.e. any area that does not flood is not included in the average calculation.

In this instance the maximum indicative depth of flooding is greater than 1.5m but the average depth across the flooded area is less than 1m.

The maximum depth suggests that mitigation measures are unlikely to be cost affective.

Defended: No Information on flood defences assets has been obtained from the Environment Agency. Any site that is protected by a defence would need to consider the residual risk of breech or overtopping in the Site Specific FRA.

This site does not have any raised defences so assessment of residual risk associated with failure of the existing defences is not required.

Record of Historical Flooding:

No Information on historical flooding has been obtained from the Environment Agency

No record is associated specifically with this site.

Soil Type Slowly Permeable Seasonally Waterlogged Fine Loamy Soils

A general description of the site soil type, taken from Soil Map of England and Wales, Lawes Agricultural Trust, Soil survey of England and Wales 1983.

Indicative Suitability for SuDs

Low All sites will require a more detailed assessment of suitability for SuDs as part of the site specific FRAs, but an indication is given based on the information provided by the soil map. The categories High, Medium or Low assigned to each site are inferred from the soil type. A judgement is made based upon key characteristics such as having good drainage, having impermeable soils or suffering from waterlogging.

Suitability is based upon infiltration SuDs techniques although it is acknowledged that techniques are available that are not reliant on good drainage characteristics.

In this case, slow permeability and seasonal water logging indicate that SuDs are unlikely to be suitable for this site.

Brown / Greenfield: Greenfield Consideration of land use is required by the Planning Authority to justify allocation under part b. of the Exception Test.

Whether a site is Green or Brownfield has been decided by looking at maps and satellite photographs only. It is likely that the Planning Authority will have more detailed information and should refer to this when making decisions.

Additional information:

Specific comments relevant to this site. May be provided by the LPA or the EA.

Exception Test applicable:

Yes, if FZ3 areas were used for 'more' vulnerable development, as indicated, or essential infrastructure or if FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development

Details the instances in which the Exception test would be applicable. A small number of sites have a specific land use identified and hence, it is possible to make an assessment based on the vulnerability classification of that land use.

However, as none of the sites are actually allocated, a general assessment is included anyway to account for the possibility that other land uses may be considered in the future.

Likelihood of passing Test:

MEDIUM - 61% in FZ1 but 36% in FZ3, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc

This is a subjective assessment. A site specific Flood Risk Assessment is required to determine actual flood risk and how residual risk would be managed.

In this instance the 61% of the site is located in a low risk zone but 36% is located in the highest risk zone. The site is Greenfield. The indicative depth of flooding suggests that mitigation may be difficult or unsuitable, but less than half of the site is predicted to flood even in the 0.1% event. The indicative likelihood of passing the Exception Test is, therefore, considered MEDIUM. (For comparison, if a higher proportion of the site was located in Flood Zone 3 then the likelihood of passing the Exceptions Test would




have been reduced, and if a lower portion was in Flood Zone 3 or if the site was Brownfield the likelihood would be increased.)

Recommendations: 61% of the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is therefore available for development.

Water compatible development should be considered for higher risk areas.

If the Planning Authority intends to allocate this site for development or award planning approval, they should assess the need for development through the spatial planning process.

A Flood Risk Assessment will be required to assess other sources of flooding and any mitigation measures required.

Those areas that are in Flood Zone 1 would not be subject to the Exceptions Test.

If those areas at high risk are restricted to water compatible land use e.g. open space then the Exceptions test would not have to be applied to the site

A Flood Risk Assessment will be required to assess the actual level of risk for this site and address element c. of the Exceptions Test. The assessment will usually be undertaken by the potential developer of the site. However, if the site is considered to be critical to regeneration, for example, then the Planning Authority can opt to undertake an outline Flood Risk Assessment in order to first justify the sustainability of the allocation.



3.8 The Exception Test

Where departures from the Sequential Test are justified by the need to locate development in higher risk zones than is appropriate, in order to meet the wider aims of sustainable development, it is necessary to apply the Exceptions Test. PPS 25 acknowledges that flood risk is one of many issues (including transport, housing, economic growth, natural resources, regeneration and the management of other hazards) which need to be considered in spatial planning.

The Exception Test is “…only appropriate for use when there are large areas in Flood Zone 2 and 3, where the Sequential Test alone cannot deliver acceptable sites, but where some continued 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. It may also be appropriate to use it where restrictive national designations such as landscape, heritage and nature conservation designations…prevent the availability of unconstrained sites in lower risk areas”39.

Although there is no definition of “small” and “large” within PPS 25, it does state that the exceptions test is not required for minor development. Minor development being defined as:

Minor non-residential extensions with a footprint less than 250m²

Development that does not increase the size of buildings

Householder developments

PPS 25 explains where and for what type of development the Exception Test needs to be applied. In some situations, for certain types of development, it is not appropriate to use the Exception Test to justify development, e.g. development which is highly vulnerable to flood risk cannot be justified within the high risk zone through the use of the Exception Test. The situations where it is necessary and appropriate to apply the Exception Test are outlined below.

The situations where it is necessary and appropriate to apply the Exception Test are outlined in figure 3-4.

39

Communities and Local Government. 2006. Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. December 2006. pg 7. http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/955/PlanningPolicyStatement25DevelopmentandFloodRisk_id1504955.pdf



Figure 3-4 Application of the Exception Test

Where new development is exceptionally necessary within areas at risk of flooding, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible reducing overall flood risk in accordance with paragraph 19 of PPS 25.

Only on completion of the Sequential Test should the Exception Test be used to justify allocation or development in high risk areas. Whilst the SFRA has been undertaken in conjunction with the EA, 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.

Where the Exception Test is required, it should be applied as soon as possible to all Local Development Document (LDD) allocations for development and all planning applications. All three elements of the Exception Test have to be passed before development is allocated or permitted. For the Exception Test to be passed:

It must demonstrate 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 DPD has reached the „submission‟ stage the benefits of the development should contribute to the Core Strategy‟s Sustainability Appraisal.

The development should 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.



A FRA must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

PPS 25 (paragraphs D11 and D12) states that the Exception Test, “…should be applied to LDD site allocations for development and used to draft criteria-based policies against which to consider planning applications…Where the Exception Test has been applied in LDD allocations or in criteria-based policies, the local planning authority should include policies in its LDDs to ensure that the developer‟s FRA satisfies criterion C) in para. D9. The Environment Agency and other appropriate operating authorities such as Internal Drainage Boards should be consulted on the drafting of any policy intended to apply the Exception Test at a local level”.

Compliance, “…with each part of the Exception Test should be demonstrated in an open and transparent way”.

This is a matter of detail that cannot be addressed in a strategic assessment. Element A of the test will need to be justified by the LPA. An indication of land use, element B, is provided in terms of sites being either green or brownfield land. Element C requires that a detailed and site specific flood risk assessment is undertaken for the site, to understand fully the implication of flood risk on development.

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 SFRA however; elements that will need to be considered in the delivery of the Exception Test include:

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?



4 SFRA FLOOD RISK MAPS

4.1 Introduction

The investigation and identification of the extent and level of flood risk to an area is assessed primarily geographically. Whilst the Environment Agency‟s Flood Maps are very useful in this respect in showing indicative land use planning zones as required by PPS 25, they are only a starting point in the consideration of flood risk in a particular area.

Environment Agency Flood Maps should be used primarily to enable the sequential test to be carried out, firstly in avoiding inappropriate development and then secondly, to seek compatibility between flood risk vulnerability and flood zones as required in Table D3 of PPS 25.

However, consideration of actual flood risk factors is also needed to gain a greater understanding of the differing degree of flood risk at a district level. These include:

Presence of defences.

Functional floodplain.

Flooding from other sources.

The impact of climate change on flood extents and depths.

Ability for emergency evacuation in extreme events.

At this SFRA level, it is not appropriate to look at flood risks in detail for individual development allocations, as this is a requirement of the site specific FRA and will be undertaken by developers in respect of specific development proposals and prior to submitting a planning application.

However, there is a need to undertake a broad assessment of flood risk issues, at the SFRA level, to assist the LPA in making the spatial planning decisions required. This will enable a degree of certainty that the proposed development allocations put forward in the LDD, can comply with the Sequential and Exception Tests in PPS 25 and importantly the developments will be safe for occupants and users.

This broad assessment is assisted greatly by the use of SFRA Flood Risk Maps providing information on flood risk factors needing to be taken into account. The Environment Agency Flood Risk Map along with the supporting SFRA Flood Risk Maps, what they show and how they may be interpreted are explained below.

This section contains information and guidance on: types of risk maps available, what they show and how they may be interpreted to assist the sequential approach.

Key messages:

Flood risk maps provide a valuable source of broad scale current and future flood risk information, to assist with the sequential approach sieving process.

These maps supplement the Environment Agency‟s Flood Maps, in so far as they describe the hazard to receptor in the floodplain for a range of events.

The suite of maps should be viewed collectively and not as individual maps in isolation.

These maps are appropriate for early and strategic consideration of development allocations and related broad scale management decisions.



4.2 Maps Overview

The Maps that accompany this report form a fundamental part of the SFRA process. Their correct use and interpretation are essential to ensure the requirements of the PPS 25, LPA and developers are met.

The maps are organised by:

General Map – showing an overview and extent of the study area

Map key – provide a visual guide to the location of subsequent close-up maps

A series of map views - zoomed in on specific areas/settlements

An overview map showing the estimated functional floodplain and climate change extents

Three modelled surface water flood risk maps

The general map shows an overview of the study area: Tynedale District Boundary, Flood Zones 2 and 3, river centre lines, river names, large water bodies and the southern part of the National Park that falls within the Study Boundary (see Map 1 in the Maps section of the SFRA).

To assist locating sites/settlements/areas within the series of subsequent maps (Maps 3 to 31) there are two sources of reference. An index table (see Index at the start of Maps section) showing site by site the associated map number and a visual map key (see Map 2) showing the spatial distribution of map views. The map views are distributed to cover all suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations, Northumberland National Park Areas and Sustainable Settlements (as of August 2008).

The map key is named Tynedale Map Views. Outlines in blue indicate larger maps that when printed are A0 and outlines in red indicate A3. Each map view is labelled with the corresponding map reference. The map key is the most appropriate source of reference for a quick guide to locate a map for a particular area. The Index Table is appropriate to refer from site code to map.

4.3 SFRA Risk Maps: Interpretation and use

The settlement and flood risk maps have been produced in support of the Environment Agency‟s latest Flood Maps.

These maps should be considered as a complementary suite of broad scale flood risk information sources in support of the Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps and no one map should be considered in isolation without reference to the others.

All four sets of maps need to be interpreted consistently for various proposed development locations in order to complete the second or third pass of the sequential approach sieving process after the Environment Agency Flood Map has been used to carry out the first sweep or sequential testing. They can also be used “outside” of the sieving process to gain an understanding of various flood risk factors appertaining to non development locations and more general areas of interest.

The detail provided in the SFRA Risk Maps will also facilitate the application of the Exceptions Test where applicable.

The four sets of maps include:

General Map

Fluvial Flood Extent Maps

Functional Floodplain and Climate Change Risk Map

Surface Water Flooding Maps

4.4 General Map

Map: 1

General Map: The Environment Agency Flood Map has been provided on one key map at a council district level. Version 3.8 of the Environment Agency Flood Zones provided in March 2008 has been used as the latest flood zones in this area.

This map illustrates:

Flood Zone 2



Flood Zone 3a

Defences

This key map should be used for the facilitating the undertaking of the Sequential Test by planners and developers according to PPS 25, as discussed previously in Section 3 and illustrated within stage 1 of the Sequential Test sieving process.

The SFRA Risk Maps discussed below should be used to support the Environment Agency Flood Maps in Sequential Testing as a second or third pass of the sieving process.

4.5 Fluvial Flood Extent

Maps: 3-31

The fluvial flood extent maps show the potential scale of flood inundation during overtopping of different standards of flood defence during a range of flood events (they do not include the input of a breach or failure of defences). The lowest standard of protection used is 1 in 2 yrs and this is normally taken as the undefended map which makes up the flood zone maps prepared by the EA.

With specific regard to this SFRA, the typical range of defence standard for the Tynedale area is to protect between a 5% (1:20y) and a 1.3% (1:75y) flood event.

One of the key benefits with showing flood extents and standard of protection is to allow the user to make comparisons and draw conclusions in the overall understanding of flood risk applicable to a specific proposed development allocation.

The maps are centralised on 7 key areas where the majority of suggested sites are focussed

Larger map views exceed these areas and sometimes encompass some of the Sustainable Settlements.

The map views have been created in order to define the impact of the potential flood risk across all areas of the Tynedale District. Some contain suggested options for site allocations and where these occur the impact of the potential flood risk on these can be deduced.

Historical responses to surface water incidents by Tynedale council are also shown. Any development located within a surface water risk area should trigger a detailed FRA as described in Section 6.

On each of the Settlement maps Flood zone 2 and 3, large water bodies (where appropriate), River centre lines, flood defences, culverted channels and the sites are shown. These maps are drawn at a 1:10,000m scale.

4.6 Functional Floodplain and Climate Change Risk Map

Map: 32

The climate change risk map shows actual fluvial flood extent from Main Rivers for an undefended floodplain with a 1% (1:100y) flood flow plus a 20% increase in volume of flood flows. This allows for the effects of climate change over the next 100 years.

Where possible new development allocations should take place outside of the flood extent shown on Map 32 so as to avoid flood risk in the future.

PPS 25 requires the consideration of the sensitivity to new developments of climate change to be considered as part of an appropriate FRA and these maps provide an early indication of this sensitivity. In addition emergency evacuation routes and “high point” areas can be identified at this broad scale and planned for outside of the flood extent, so as not to be overwhelmed and put at risk in the future.

The sensitivity of a particular location and land use to climate change can be factored into decisions regarding floor levels, building uses and safe access and egress etc. Greater changes in depth can be associated with greater increases in flood risk and in these areas, where this risk cannot be avoided, or substituted, mitigation measures are likely to be extensive and for some developments, the FRA may not be able to demonstrate continued safety for occupants as required by the Exception Test in PPS 25.

The sequential approach requires early consideration of the effects climate change on flood risk and these maps help greatly in this respect.

The functional floodplain has been delineated using the method outline in Section 3.5.4.



The climate change and functional floodplain map are provided in Map 32.

4.7 Surface Water Flooding Maps

Maps: 33-35

There are three surface water flood risk maps at a 1:10,000 m scale covering Hexham, Haltwhistle and Prudhoe – the main urban centres. On these maps Flood Zone 3 is shown with the 1000 year rainfall event. The surface water extent and depth is shown in depth categories 0.15 – 2.50 meters.

The „areas naturally vulnerable to surface water flooding maps‟ show actual surface water flood extent and variation in depths for particular geographical areas of interest, assuming a 0.1% (1:1000yr) rainfall event. The outline extent of the Environment Agency‟s Flood Zone 3 is shown for comparison.

There is one map for three town areas and the extent and variation in depth of potential flooding due to surface water is shown in a yellow to red scale where the darker the red in colour, the deeper the flood water. These maps are extremely helpful in supplementing the Fluvial Flood Extent as they show where localised, flash flooding can cause problems, even if the Main Rivers are not overflowing. This is often due to high intensity rainfall events, which exceed the capacity of sewer systems. As a result, surface water is unable to drain away safely and flooding results.

The maps typically show shallower (light yellow) flooded 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 deeper (darker red) flooded areas are predominantly in valley bottoms and in the Main River floodplain. From the maps it can be seen that there are many areas of land outside Flood Zone 3, that are at risk from deep surface water flooding and this needs to be considered as an integral part of the assessment.

It is usual however; that surface water flood risks alone can be effectively mitigated, whereas fluvial flood risks or combined surface water and fluvial flood risk at a particular location can cause serious risks to people and property.

These maps are extremely helpful in supporting the Environment Agency Flood Map during the Sequential Test as indicated above to assess the relative degree of flood risk 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.

Many of the specific ways in which these maps are helpful to the consideration of flood risk are the same as stated above for the fluvial flood risk maps whilst acknowledging the risk is from a different source. However, the same areas of land coloured by both sets of maps indicate a combined flood risk from fluvial and surface water sources.

4.8 Conclusion and Further use of SFRA Flood Risk Maps

Examples of conclusions and further uses of these maps include:

Identifying general extents Main River flooding.

Comparing flood extents generally and for specific areas, with those shown on the Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps.

Comparing flood extent relating to existing and future land uses.

Identifying where flooding problems are likely currently, and in the future in terms of:

residential areas.

business parks and industrial areas.

schools, hospitals and civic buildings.

transport activities including road and rail disruption.

utility infrastructure such as water and sewage treatment works, pumping stations, power stations, electricity supply sub stations etc.



Assisting a sequential approach to locating new development in lower flood risk areas, having first carried out the sequential test using the Environment Agency‟s Flood Zone Maps.

Identifying the scope for maximising a sequential approach to the development allocation including layout and design.

Identify areas of floodplain where preparations for emergencies are needed including emergency plans, flood warnings and evacuation etc.

Assist emergency services activities on the ground to help avoid deep and potentially fast flowing water.

Identify the location of open space areas that currently flood and provide flood storage without causing too much disruption to existing land uses and people and property.

Identify where these flood storage areas might be better utilised in future and locations for potential new flood storage areas and washlands where development should be avoided.

The maps are extremely useful in answering specific questions about specific development allocations, prior to the decision for the proposal to be subjected to the Exception Test in PPS 25. In particular, they are helpful by:

Providing an early indication prior to detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling, of the likelihood of the site and its occupants remaining safe in a 1% and a 0.1% flood event and the proposal being able to pass condition c) of the exception test in PPS 25.

Showing where narrow or wide floodplains exist and the potential difficulties for emergency evacuation in an extreme event by land vehicles as opposed to boat use or aircraft.

Indicating current and future extents of flooding in the proposed development area for 1% and 0.1%, and 1% plus climate change flood events.

Targeting valuable time and resources towards those development allocations that are likely to succeed as opposed to those which are likely not to pass the Exception Test and not gain planning approval due to flood risk constraints.

Knowing the likely design, engineering and building requirements early on in the consideration of the suitability of the site for the proposed development to assist financial estimates and consideration of the overall viability of development project at that site.

Early appreciation and commitment to likely expenditure to make the site safe as required in PPS 25.

Early identification of flood storage and/or floodplain restoration as part of the overall development proposal.



5 APPLICATION OF SEQUENTIAL AND EXCEPTIONS TESTS AT SUGGESTED OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AS LDF SITE ALLOCATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The majority of the sites to be considered in the Tynedale area are divided between the following seven key areas:

Haltwhistle (see Map 3).

Hexham (see Map 4).

Prudhoe (see Map 5).

Allendale (see Map 6).

Bellingham (see Map 7).

Corbridge (see Map 8).

Haydon Bridge (see Map 9).

A particular consideration is provided for the Northumberland National Park Areas which have no specific sites for assessment:

Northumberland National Park Areas (see Maps 7, 10, 11, 12, 13).

The remaining sites are assessed under the group title „Other‟ but segregated by the status Sustainable Settlement (as assigned by Tynedale District Council August 2008) and the remaining scattered sites falling within Other: North Tynedale and Other: South Tynedale. All sites are shown on one of the 29 detailed maps provided with the report, Maps 3 to 31. The orientation of each map is shown in Map 2 providing a clear spatial reference. In addition, an index detailing which sites appear on which Map is included for reference at the beginning of the Maps section, to the rear of this report.

The site specific assessment tables are located in Appendix A: Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park: Sequential and Exception Tests.

5.2 Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park Area

A review of the Environment Agency Flood Zones indicates that flood risk from rivers, or fluvial flood risk, is relatively well defined and localised to the watercourses. There are no large floodplain areas. Only a small proportion of the District is, therefore located within Flood Zones 2 or 3. The characteristic „hilly‟ topography means that fluvial flood risk is well contained and there is relatively little difference between the extent of Flood Zone 3 and Flood Zone 2 in much of the area. The areas at risk of fluvial flooding relate to the network of watercourses. The largest watercourse in the study area is the River Tyne and most of the others form tributaries to it.

5.2.1 Principles for development of Tynedale Sites

When assessing the suitability of land for allocation, Tynedale District Council and Northumberland National Park Authority, will adopt the following principles for development planning.

Flood Zone 1

Development of Flood Zone 1 areas will be encouraged in preference to higher flood risk areas.

Flood Zone 2

Development sites within Flood Zone 2 will be considered in preference to Flood Zone 3 areas. Any development planned within Flood Zone 2 will require a Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that development is sustainable and flood risk can be effectively managed

Flood Zone 3

Where allocations include areas in Flood Zone 3, and where departures from the Sequential Flood Risk Test are justified, the Planning Authorities will give consideration to the following:

The Planning Authorities‟ preferred use of Flood Zone 3 areas will be for the development of green corridors and for areas of Public Open Space. These land uses, as part of any



subsequent redevelopment proposals, are considered to be water compatible developments.

The developable area in Flood Zone 3 will further be reduced by the need for a maintenance easement. Typically a 5m access strip, void of development, is required along the bank top for maintenance purposes. This is likely to reduce the available developable area.

Finally, any development planned within Flood Zone 3 will require a Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that development is sustainable and flood risk can be effectively managed.

5.3 Flooding from other sources

This section contains information on flooding from other sources. The Pitt Review was carried out following the severe floods of summer 2007 and is a key document for local authorities in their consideration of flood risk management. The Pitt Review has raised the issue of flooding from other sources higher up the political agenda.

5.3.1 Surface Water

Whilst Tynedale has a fairly low vulnerability to flooding from rivers, as indicated by the narrow flood zones, it is prone to flooding from rapid surface water runoff or „flash‟ flooding. This is because of the district‟s unique topography which is characterised by areas of flat ground surrounded by hilly areas, plus a network of small drains and ditches across the district. The effects of climate change are predicted to increase the intensity of rain storms and, hence, increase the severity of overland flooding.

Any development in the area should be mindful of this and include an assessment of the risk from localised rapid run off or from any near by drains or ditches in the site specific FRA.

The risk from surface water flooding is not represented on the Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps; although a national map showing areas potentially susceptible to surface water flooding has been issued to Resilience Fora.. For this study, the issue has been addressed firstly, by collecting information on past incidents and secondly, by constructing basic surface water models using a similar technology that produced the national map, the location of the latter being informed by the results of the former.

Information on past Surface Water Flooding Incidents

In order to make a strategic assessment of surface water issues in the district the following information was obtained:

Flood Incident Records fro m the Northumberland Fire & Rescue Service

Site specific knowledge from Tynedale District Council and Northumberland National Park Representatives.

The Flood Incident Record provides the address of any property attended by the Northumberland Fire & Rescue Service following a flood incident. However, the records do not provide much detail regarding the exact source of the flood e.g. whether the flooding is a result of surface run off, which would indicate a source of flood risk and be of consequence to spatial planning, or a damaged water pipe, which would not.

Site specific knowledge from local representatives is another valuable way of identifying areas which are most vulnerable to flood risk.

Although both of these sources of information have some limitations, when combined, they can be used to highlight any potential flooding hot spots.

The urban settlement of Hexham was identified by local authority representatives as an area vulnerable to flood risk from rapid run off from surrounding hills. Anecdotally, Hexham has an established history of „flash‟ flooding. This is supported by a high density of Fire Service records.

5.3.2 Risk from other large water bodies in the study area

The Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps only represent the flood risk posed by rivers and oceans, i.e. fluvial and tidal risk, and do not take any man made structures into account. Therefore the flood risk associated with raised reservoirs is not indicated.



At this strategic level it is necessary to flag up these additional potential sources of risk, and hence the locations of the significant reservoirs are marked on each of the detailed maps. These include:

Kielder Reservoir: site option SA090, Yarrowmoor Operations Centre, is considered in the immediate vicinity.

Colt Crag Reservoir: no site option in the immediate vicinity.

Hallington Reservoir: no site option in the immediate vicinity.

Derwent Reservoir: sites option SA121, Redwell Hall Farm, and SA122, Birkenside, are considered in the immediate vicinity.

Catcleugh Reservoir: no site option in the immediate vicinity.

Whittle Reservoir: site option SA082, Whittle Dene Water Treatment Works, is considered in the immediate vicinity.

If the development of any of the sites identified were progressed, or if any other development was to be proposed in the locality of one the reservoirs, it would be necessary to consider the possible impacts of overtopping or breach as part of a site specific FRA.

It should be noted that the Kielder Reservoir is considered a well maintained structure and the associate probability of failure will be negligible.

There are many other smaller pools, meres and ponds located across the district that may have the potential to alleviate or exacerbate local flooding issues. Although it is not appropriate to list them all at strategic level, it is important to recognise that any development in the vicinity of any body of water must be sensitive to the effect it could have on the local hydraulic balance. Site specific Flood Risk Assessments are essential to understanding and limiting the impact that a development could have.



6 GUIDANCE FOR DETAILED FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENTS

6.1 Introduction

The aim of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is to demonstrate that proposed development will not be at risk to flooding during the design event. This includes assessment of mitigation measures required to safely manage flood risk. The FRA also needs to demonstrate that the proposed development will not increase flood risk either upstream or downstream of the site. All sources of flood risk, including fluvial, surface water runoff and drainage need to be considered.

Flood Risk Assessments for proposed development should follow the approach recommended by:

The Environment Agency (see its National Standing Advice to Local Planning Authorities for Planning Applications – Development and Flood Risk in England (March 2007). See www.pipernetworking.com for all guidance on the scoping and undertaking of detailed FRAs.

CIRIA Report C624 Development and Flood Risk – Guidance for the Construction Industry (2004)

PPS 25 and its Practice Guide.

These documents describe when a FRA is required, what it should contain and are extremely helpful in guiding developers to produce a “fit for purpose” FRA and are commensurate with the advice given in this SFRA. All proposed development sites require at least an initial assessment of flood risks. A detailed FRA will be required for all developments that fall in the medium and high flood risk zones and other sites where significant flood risk is identified. A brief FRA will be required for sites in Flood Zone 1 which are greater than 1 ha (unless there are significant flooding issues, when a more detailed FRA will be necessary).

This section contains information and guidance on: key FRA reference documents, general principles of flood risk assessment, surface water drainage, Flood Zones 3a and 3b (including defended and undefended areas, public safety and rapid inundation, and the of flood risk mitigation), Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 1, and flood risk issues relating to other known flood risk areas including Internal Drainage Districts.

Key messages:

Primary sources (PPS 25, Practice Guide and CIRIA Report 624) should be used for FRAs and be supplemented by information in this SFRA;

FRAs are required for all development proposals in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and also for developments over 1 ha in Flood Zone 1;

Surface water drainage assessments are required as an integral part of the FRA;

Demonstration that technically feasible flood risk mitigation options are available is required;

Floodplain compensation requirements can be onerous on sites wholly within FZ3, and this assessment should be undertaken as early as possible in the planning process

Overtopping and breach of flood defences should be considered along with emergency access, egress and evacuation;

FRAs should demonstrate that the development and it‟s users and occupiers will remain safe in times of flood; and

Functional floodplain should be considered as essential green infrastructure and safeguarded wherever possible, and this may include parts of regeneration sites

http://www.pepernetworking.com/



The information that follows serves to highlight key aspects of detailed FRAs and should be used in conjunction with the principle sources of information identified above.

6.2 General Principles

Annex E of PPS 25 provides information on the general principles of flood risk assessment and states the minimum requirements for all stages of the planning process. These include:

Be proportionate to the risk and appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the development.

Consider the risk arising fro the development in addition to the risk of flooding to the development.

Take the impacts of climate change into account.

Be undertaken as early as possible in the planning process.

Consider potential adverse and beneficial aspects of flood risk management infrastructure.

Consider the vulnerability of the users of the development.

Consider and quantify different types of flooding from all sources.

Include the assessment of residual risks.

Consider sustainable surface water drainage systems.

Be supported by appropriate data and information.

Figure 2.4 of the Practice Guide provides information on the scope of FRAs and this should be used as a starting point for all development proposals and then supplemented to reflect any specific peculiarities or issues in respect of the particular development proposal or site under consideration.

Information on levels of flood risk assessment is provided in both the CIRIA C624 Publication and Table 2.3 of the Practice Guide. There are principally three levels of FRA:

Level 1 – Screening study, to identify whether there are any flooding or surface water management issues that need to be considered further.

Level 2 – Scoping study, to be undertaken if the Level 1 FRA indicates that there are flood risk issues needing further consideration and the risk can be readily quantified.

Level 3 – Detailed study, where further quantitative analysis is required to appropriately assess flood related issues and determine any effective mitigation measures that need to be put in place.

Table 2.4 in the Practice Guide provides a helpful list of typical sources of information to help undertake an appropriate FRA.

In addition, typical outputs of a Level 1 or Level 2 FRA, supported by guidance notes and a FRA pro-forma are contained in the Practice Guide and these include:

Development description and location.

Definition of flood hazard.

Probability of flooding.

Effects of climate change.

Detailed development proposals.

Flood risk impacts and management measures.

Consideration and management of off site and residual risks.

For all levels of FRA developers are advised to make early contact with the Environment Agency and the LPA to discuss their proposals in outline and consider the site in respect of the risk based sequential approach contained within the SFRA.



6.3 Assessment and Mitigation of Fluvial Risk

The mitigation design criterion for development within floodplain areas are generally set to protect against the flood event coinciding with a 1% annual probability of occurrence, including the impact of climate change. Detailed consideration will need to be given to the impact these mitigation measures may have and it is a requirement to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere as a result of development. Compensation measures may take the form of compensatory flood storage as mitigation for loss of floodplain, enhanced flood defences and flood compatible master planning. Compensation measures will be needed in both defended and undefended floodplains. This concept is included in PPS 25 and ensures that residual risk is appropriately managed in new and existing development.

Before embarking on detailed modelling, and in light of this SFRA, proposals for development should be discussed in detail with the Environment Agency at an early stage.

Detailed FRAs may need to be carried out using hydraulic models. However, before any modelling is undertaken a review of available information should be conducted to assess if modelling is necessary. For fluvial floodplains an assessment of the hydrological regime is required. This should be undertaken using available gauged records and Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) techniques. Where hydraulic modelling is necessary, it will need to include structures, such as bridges and weirs that influence flood levels. This modelling should also include floodplains to accurately determine the depth and extent of flooding.

Whenever possible models should be verified using historical records of flooding. Its sensitivity to modelling assumptions and climate change should also be investigated. Mapping the extent of flooding in a specific location will assist the risk of flooding to a specific development to be assessed.

Where allocations remain in high risk flood zone areas for other material considerations, it needs to be demonstrated that technically feasible flood mitigation options are available. A fuller appreciation of the sustainability of the site and its mitigation measures will be addressed via the Sustainability Appraisal. These measures must be designed to provide an appropriate level of flood mitigation to a site for the lifetime of the development. At most sites it is technically feasible to mitigate or manage flood risk (if potential off-site impacts are ignored), however the measures required may result in some practical constraints on development and/or require significant financial cost where flood risk is high. The detailed FRA should build on initial potential mitigation measures considered when determining the likelihood of the Exception Test being met as indicated earlier in Section 3 of this report.

6.4 Assessment of Surface Water Drainage Issues

Opportunities for developing an Integrated Water or Drainage Management Strategy across development site boundaries should be explored, and a catchment led approach should be adopted. This approach has been recognised in the consultation paper by Defra, „Making Space for Water‟. An integrated approach to controlling surface water drainage can lead to a more efficient and reliable surface water management system as it enables a wider variety of potential flood mitigation options to be used. In addition to controlling flood risk, integrated management of surface water has potential benefits, including improved water quality and a reduction of water demand through grey water recycling.

Integrated drainage systems may be considered suitable for catchments where other development is being planned or constructed, and where on-site measures are set in isolation of the systems and processes downstream.

Surface water drainage assessments are required where proposed development may be susceptible to flooding from surface water drainage systems. The potential impact upon areas downstream of the development, including the impact on a receiving watercourse, also needs careful consideration.

The requirements for surface water drainage systems will need to be discussed with the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water. Consideration should be given to whether a „Greenfield runoff approach‟ to the assessment of source control is appropriate. This method is generally satisfactory in the cases where the development is relatively small, isolated from other planned sites and the runoff processes are fully understood.



The FRA should then conclude with an assessment of the scale of the impact, and the recommended approach to controlling surface water discharge from a proposed development.

The recent Government consultation on surface water drainage as discussed in Section 2 of this report should be considered when assessing surface water drainage as part of the FRA. In addition, Guidance for Developers and Regulators in Scotland on Drainage Impact Assessments has been produced by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and others, and this is a valuable reference document.

6.5 Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SUDS)

In the management of surface water flooding risks attenuation of runoff from proposed sites must be considered carefully. PPS25 has a presumption that Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) could be applied wherever possible and practicable. A brief review of SUDS are given below, with these considerations reflected in the assessment of potential sites in Appendix A.

SUDS are management practices which enable surface water to be drained in a more sustainable manner.

For greenfield developments, the aim is to not increase runoff from the undeveloped situation; for brownfield re-developments, the aim is to reduce existing runoff rates. Wherever possible, this should be achieved through the implementation of a sustainable drainage or flow retention system, constructed within the boundaries of the development site.

There are many different SUDS techniques which can be implemented. As a result, there is no one correct drainage solution for a site. In most cases, a combination of techniques, using the Management Train principle, will be required. Figure 6-1 shows the SUDS Management Train principle, where source control is the primary aim.

Figure 6-1: SUDS Management Train Principle

Source: CIRIA (2008) Sustainable Drainage Systems: promoting good practice – a CIRIA initiative http://www.ciria.org/suds/suds_management_train.htm



A good first assessment of the suitability of different SUDS components can be achieved be reviewing the techniques set out in Table 1.7 of the CIRIA SUDS Manual40, which shows the capability of different SUDS techniques.

The CIRIA SUDS Manual provides a detailed series of matrices that can be used as a screening process to select the best groups of SUDS for a development site. These are based around five selection criteria:

Land use characteristics

Site characteristics

Catchment characteristics

Quantity and quality performance characteristics

Amenity and environmental requirements

The effectiveness of a flow management scheme within a single site is heavily limited by land use and site characteristics including (but not limited to) topography, geology (soil permeability), and available area. In addition to potential ground contamination associated with urban and formerly industrial sites with concern being placed on the depth of the local water table and potential contamination risks. The design, construction and ongoing maintenance regime of such a scheme must be carefully defined, and a clear and comprehensive understanding of the catchment hydrological processes (i.e. nature and capacity of the existing drainage system) is essential. Additionally, for infiltration SUDS it is imperative that the water table is low enough and a site specific infiltration test is undertaken.

At a catchment level characteristics determine whether there are any regulatory criteria that may restrict or preclude the use of a particular SUDS technique, or that may impose additional requirements on the performance of a particular system. The design of the SUDS may for example be influenced by the characteristics of the downstream water body that will receive the storm water discharge. In some cases, high pollutant removal or environmental performance will be needed to fully protect aquatic resources and/or human health.

Catchment characteristics are generally related to the number of components in the treatment train that will lower the risk of poor water quality treatment performance rather than appropriateness of technique.

Regarding flood risk, those SUDS with a high/primary process for dealing with water quantity should first be investigated, before other benefits such as water quality and environmental befits are included. SUDS can reduce the amount and rate of runoff by a combination of:

Infiltration;

Storage; and

Conveyance

There are a number of SUDS techniques which could be used individually or as part of a management train, however their suitability relies on the site and catchment descriptors discussed above but also their intended purpose (as shown in Table 6-1).

Table 6-1: Suitability of SUDS Techniques

SUDS Technique Infiltration Storage Conveyance

Green Roofs

Permeable Paving

Rainwater Harvesting

Swales

Detention Basins

Ponds

40

CIRIA (2007) The SUDS manual.



Wetlands

Source: PPS25 Practice Guide

6.5.1 Green Roofs and walls

Green Roofs and walls can vary in type from Roof Gardens, Roof Terraces, Green Roofs and Green Walls. This approach utilises plants and their substrate provide temporary storage of rainfall. The water retained by the substrate and lost through evaporation and evapotranspiration minimises runoff from the roof.

6.5.2 Permeable surfaces and filter drains

Pervious pavements such as permeable concrete blocks, crushed stone, asphalt will allow water to infiltrate directly into the subsoil before soaking into the ground. Filter Drains are gravel filled trench which trap sediments from run-off and provide attenuation. Flow is directed to a perforated pipe which conveys run-off wither back into the sewerage network or into a water body. Filter drains are used mainly to drain road and car park surfaces.

6.5.3 Infiltration devices

Infiltration devices drain water directly into the ground. They may be used at source or the runoff can be conveyed in a pipe or swale to the infiltration area. They include soakaways, infiltration trenches and infiltration basins as well as swales, filter drains and ponds. Infiltration devices can be integrated into and form part of the landscaped areas.

6.5.4 Rainwater harvesting

Rainwater harvesting techniques, such as the installation of water butts, can aid in increasing the attenuation of rainfall and contribute to the on site recycling of grey water.

6.5.5 Filter strips and swales

Filter Strips are vegetated areas that are intended to treat sheet flow from adjacent impervious areas. Filter strips function by slowing runoff velocities and filtering out sediment and other pollutants, and providing some infiltration into underlying soils. Filter strips were originally used as an agricultural treatment practice, and have more recently evolved into an urban practice. However, in heavily urbanised areas this approach is unlikely to be acceptable.

Swales provide temporary storage for storm water to help reduce peak flow runoff. This approach to SUDS also provides scope for the creation of wildlife habitats and biodiversity gain

6.5.6 Basins and ponds

Basins and ponds enhance flood storage capacity by providing temporary storage for storm water through the creation of landscape features within a site (which can often provide opportunities for the creation of wildlife habitats). Basins, ponds and wetlands can be fed by swales, filter drains or piped systems. In some instances, storm water runoff from a development can feed a pond which overflows into a vegetated wetland area to act as a natural soakaway.

6.6 Flood Zone 3b – The Functional Floodplain

In PPS 25 only water compatible uses are allowed in this Flood Zone. Essential Infrastructure can be permitted after the Exceptions Test is passed. According to PPS 25, developers and local authorities should:

Reduce 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

Relocate existing development to land with a lower probability of flooding

In addition, according to PPS 25, essential infrastructure should:

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.

http://www.ciria.org/suds/glossary.htm#runoff

http://www.ciria.org/suds/glossary.htm#swale

http://www.ciria.org/suds/glossary.htm#soakaway

http://www.ciria.org/suds/glossary.htm#infiltration_trench



http://www.ciria.org/suds/glossary.htm#infiltration_basin

http://www.ciria.org/suds/glossary.htm#filter_drain

http://www.ciria.org/suds/glossary.htm#pond



As discussed in Section 3 of this report, functional floodplain should be considered as essential green space infrastructure and be retained for the natural use of flood water wherever possible.

6.7 Flood Zone 3a – High Probability

PPS 25 states that water-compatible uses and less vulnerable development are allowed in this Flood Zone, following testing within the sequential process. According to PPS 25 highly vulnerable development is not permitted. Essential infrastructure and more vulnerable development need to pass the Exception Test, while essential infrastructure should be designed and constructed to remain operational and safe for users in times of flood.

According to PPS 25, developers and local authorities should implement the following policy aims:

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;

Relocate existing development to land in zones with a lower probability of flooding; and

Create space for flooding to occur by restoring functional floodplain and flood flow pathways and by identifying, allocating and safeguarding open space for flood storage

The delineation of the subset zones of High Risk Zone 3 may be sufficient to allow the spatial planning process to continue, with development steered away from these high risk zones. However, regeneration of land or change in land use behind existing defended areas in the High Risk Zone will continue to require a more detailed assessment of the flood risk (i.e. whether the scale of risk is worth taking, and how sustainable and effective the mitigation measures would be (i.e. whether the risk could be managed). Where, due to wider sustainable development reasons, there are no other suitable sites available in lower risk zones then an assessment of the actual risk within Flood Zone 3 is required. Annex G in PPS 25 deals with managing residual flood risk.

Paragraph G2 of PPS 25 states that following application of the Sequential Test and Exception Test for Zone 3a development:

“Should not normally be permitted where flood defences, properly maintained and in combination with agreed warming and evacuation arrangements, would not provide an acceptable standard of safety taking into account climate change.”

It is for the developer to demonstrate how in planning terms this safety can be achieved and how the residual risks will be managed. A clear distinction between commercial flood standards of protection and management of loss of life should be explored in the FRA. A greater reliance on flood warning may be required, which is not always a tangible alternative to accepting a lower standard of protection.

In the context of this discussion, an undefended area of floodplain as shown in Figure 6-2 below is considered to be an area where the water level for the 1% event will be similar to that in the relevant watercourse. These areas may be entirely undefended or if defences are present they are discontinuous or constructed to a low standard. Figure 6-2 illustrates a small floodplain where the standard of protection is low, filling to the same level as the river.

Figure 6-2 Illustration of the undefended area case, where the standard of protection is low, the floodplain is small and fills to the same level as the river



A defended area as shown in Figure 6-3 below is considered to be an area of floodplain where the defences will result in a water level for the 1% event that is considerably lower than in the source watercourse. This means the defences substantially (but not necessarily completely) mitigate the flood risk associated with the 1% event. These areas will be defended to a minimum standard promoted by Defra, but not always necessarily to the 1% standard. Figure 6-3 illustrates where the overtopping or breach volume is small compared to the floodplain receptor and allows a refined assessment of residual risk.

Areas Benefiting from Defences is the next generation of information to be provided by the Environment Agency on their Flood Map. For the purposes of future application of this guidance the standard of protection provided by the Environment Agency or from an assessment from an existing or new model would suffice. Areas which are defended will be protected by recent flood management schemes and are therefore well known to Environment Agency staff.

Figure 6-3 Illustration of the defended area, where the overtopping or breach volume is small compared to the floodplain receptor and allows a refined assessment of residual risk

6.7.1 Undefended Areas – Flood Risk Mitigation

Within undefended or poorly defended Zone 3a areas, floor levels for housing developments should, as a minimum, be situated above the acceptable standard of safety with sufficient freeboard to account for uncertainties in flood level prediction and climate change.

In accordance with PPS 25 development within Zone 3a may require flood risk management measures, constructed with the operating authority‟s satisfaction with a dedicated financial sum to fully fund whole life maintenance and future climate change adaptability costs. The following paragraphs help to define an appropriate standard of flood risk mitigation in undefended areas in the context of this SFRA.

The Sequential Test should be applied within the development site area, and it is considered appropriate to direct more vulnerable land uses to parts of the site at less probability and residual risk of flooding. The lower floors of buildings in areas at both medium and high probability of flooding should seek to develop water-compatible and less vulnerable land uses, including car parks or other public areas consistent with Table C-2.

Housing developments (more vulnerable development) should provide a minimum habitable space floor level above the estimated 1% year water level with the addition of allowances for modelling uncertainty and climate change (i.e. freeboard). This may be achieved by providing car parking or other public areas at ground floor level.

Employment development (less vulnerable development) should provide a similar standard of flood defence as housing developments. Within undefended or poorly defended Zone 3a areas, employment development should remain dry during the 1% event (or breach scenario where defences are in poor condition), with sufficient freeboard to account for uncertainties in flood level prediction and climate change. Developers will need to carefully consider the commercial viability of developing in these areas. In exceptional circumstances, where there is significant planning justification for development and the provision of this standard of defence is not feasible, a greater acceptance of flood risk may be permitted for less vulnerable development in areas of high probability of flooding with the focus on providing safety to occupants, flood proofing and designing buildings to minimise flood damage.



Flood proofing may be considered in circumstances where there is a low probability of limited shallow depth water entry and buildings are not subjected to severe inundation depths. This type of construction is designed to reduce the consequences of flooding and facilitate recovery from the effect sooner than conventional buildings.

This may be achieved “through the use of water-resistant materials for floors, walls and fixtures and the positioning of electrical controls, cables and appliances at a higher than normal level.” and flood resistant construction to either reduce the amount of water or prevent entry of water into a building where resistant techniques are used. A means of safe access and egress in times of flooding must be provided, especially when considering those with restricted mobility.

Further information on resistance and resilience techniques is provided by Defra in their recent publication titled “Improving the Flood Performance of New Buildings – Flood Resilient Construction” and this is available on their website.

Whilst the basic level of protection afforded to residential and commercial development is the same, it is clear that approaches to how residual risk is managed may differ between these two types of developments. For residential development residual risk is a societal issue, for which a presumption of avoidance and removal is appropriate. Hence a significant freeboard should be incorporated into housing development floor levels, whereas for a commercial property the end user and insurer can assess and transfer this residual risk as appropriate. Therefore commercial and employment uses have a suitably different approach to the management of the residual risk, above that provided by the basic mitigation works. The onus would be on the local authorities to determine whether these risks are acceptable, in conjunction with advice from the Environment Agency. PPS 25 advocates a risk based approach linked to vulnerability, and does not provide a prescriptive set of flood protection standards. Wherever possible as high a standard should be provided, but in exceptional circumstances, where alternative or complementary flood risk management measures can be taken and are sustainable, a lower standard may be acceptable. Care must be taken that such an approach would not result in future public expenditure on retrospective flood alleviation measures. Therefore this approach is exceptional and only applicable in limited locations where the flood risks are fully understood.

Isolated small greenfield developments may be sustainable in terms of their impact on floodplain storage and conveyance, however the cumulative effects of many small developments can be large and greenfield sites must be viewed within a wider perspective.

6.7.2 Defended Areas

Within defended areas flood risk is primarily associated with overtopping and breach of defences (and localised flooding associated with drainage systems in some locations). These risks are related to the likelihood (standard of protection and structural integrity of defences) and consequences of flooding (depth, speed and duration of flooding, velocity of flood waters, and land use within defended area).

The likelihood of overtopping can be estimated by comparison of modelled water levels (where available) and defence crest levels. An indication of the likelihood of defence breach can be gained by reviewing the flood defence condition data held within the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD), as discussed in Section 6.6.4 of this report, and more detailed surveys and investigations undertaken by the Environment Agency and/or others. The consequences of defence overtopping or breach failure can be estimated using flood inundation modelling and mapping.

For developments to proceed it must also be shown that the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere through a loss of breach storage or conveyance.

Overtopping

Where assessments show an area to be at risk of defence overtopping in the 1% event (with climate change), measures should be employed to mitigate the risk. Where floor level raising is the preferred mitigation technique, minimum floor levels for housing developments should be set above the estimated water level that would result behind the defences (with an allowance for uncertainty and climate change). In exceptional circumstances, where there is significant planning justification for development and the provision of this standard of risk mitigation is not feasible, a lower degree of flood risk mitigation may be permitted in employment developments with the focus on providing safety to occupants, flood proofing and designing buildings to minimise flood damage.



Assuming it can be demonstrated that occupants remain safe a maximum inundation depth of 0.6 m may be considered appropriate for the 1% event with the addition of allowances for modelling uncertainty and climate change. Minimum floor levels may be lower than the main river level if the floodplain is large.

Where the defences consist of earth embankments, overtopping of the defences is likely to lead to erosion and weakening of the defence structure. In these circumstances failure of the defences is considered highly probable and an assessment of the consequences of defence breach is also required.

Breach

Where the defences are shown to be at risk of overtopping and/or NFCDD data or additional information indicate that the flood defences are in poor or very poor condition, for the purposes of the SFRA it may be assumed that there is a reasonable likelihood of defence breach in a major flood event during the lifetime of any new development A high degree of flood risk mitigation needs therefore to be provided or it may be that due to the high risk, the location is deemed to be unsuitable for development. If mitigation measures are acceptable, then minimum floor levels in housing developments should be set above the estimated maximum breach water level for the 1% event with allowance for climate change and other uncertainties.

In locations where the defence is of a high standard, both in terms of stability and height, then the probability of a breach occurring is reduced and hence the risk reduces as well. The overall probability of the consequences associated with a breach occurring extend to the extreme end of the risk continuum. This does allow a more considered approach to residual risk, and some flooding of non-sensitive or vulnerable developments may be considered acceptable.

Where the defences are shown to provide a standard of protection greater than the 1% event (with climate change), NFCDD data indicate that the defences are in good or very good condition, and there is an absence of detailed survey data to suggest otherwise, for the purposes of the SFRA it may be assumed that the likelihood of defence failure in a major flood event is low. With the defences mitigating risk substantially, a lesser degree of site-based flood risk mitigation may be adopted, with the focus on providing safety to the development and its occupants from residual risks. Assuming it can be demonstrated that occupants remain safe, for housing developments it is recommended that minimum floor levels be set to the maximum breach level for a 1% event less 300 mm, or 600 mm above natural surface level, whichever is greater.

A maximum inundation depth of 0.6 m may be considered acceptable when combined with the 1% (1 in 100 yr) event and a breach in these well defended areas in employment developments under these circumstances after consideration of uncertainty and climate change has been added to the minimum floor levels. However, occupants and users still need to remain safe. Identification of the rapid inundation zone is essential in these circumstances, before deploying a relaxation of the residual risk accepted within the design. In comparison to residential areas, where societal risks are generally designed out, it is considered appropriate to possibly transfer these residual risks via insurance or resilience in the design of the commercial use, if the users of the site can remain safe.

The effects of land raising within defended areas on potential breach risk also warrants careful consideration in the flood risk assessment. In confined floodplains where breach levels approach those in the main river, land raising is unlikely to have any impact on breach water levels and extents. However, where the floodplain is not confined by natural high ground or secondary defences, or where the passage of breach floodwater is restricted by partial barriers such as road or rail embankments, and consequently breach levels do not approach the main river level, then there is potential for land raising to lead to an increase in flood risk (extent and depth of breach) elsewhere. The potential for increasing breach related flood risk elsewhere is directly related to the loss of breach storage volume and conveyance, and single, small-scale developments are unlikely to have a significant impact. However, the cumulative effect of individual development proposals needs to be considered. Quantitative assessment of these effects may require detailed breach modelling to be undertaken in individual flood risk assessments. This guidance is not restricted to Zone 3a and applies to any site that is located with a defended area that is at risk of flooding from defence failure.

6.7.3 Public Safety and Rapid Inundation

For all Zone 3a allocations, and particularly in defended areas where a development site is close to a defence (i.e. within 500m), consideration must be given to residual risks and the risk to public



safety associated with access and egress from properties. Residual risks are those associated with very low likelihood events, such as events of frequency less than 1% annual exceedance probability and failure of defences where defences provide a high standard of protection.

Development should not be sited where these risks unduly threaten public safety and/or the structural integrity of buildings and infrastructure. Early discussion with the Environment Agency, LPA and County Emergency Planning Officer is required in the consideration of the depth of flooding, flow velocity, rate of inundation and safe access / egress to assess these risks. This assessment is particularly applicable to areas at risk from both breach and overtopping.

There is a range of research and guidance available on flood hazards and public safety. DEFRA / Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Flood Defence Research and Development Programme, Project FD2317, Flood Risks to People consolidates flood hazard research from many sources.

The most recent flood hazard (FHaz) formula (Equation 6.1) proposed by Phase 2 of the Risks to People Project is:

DFVdFHaz 5.0 (6.1)

Where:

d is depth m

V is velocity ms-1

DF is the debris factor with a value of 0-1

A number of flood hazard thresholds have been identified describing a flood hazard as “Dangerous for some”, “Dangerous for most” and “Dangerous for all”. At present the lower threshold for “dangerous for some” of 0.75 is appropriate with a conservative upper threshold of 1.5. The threshold of 2.5 for “Dangerous to all” has been set with a less conservative view and it should be noted that hazard is not purely a function of flood depth. Flood hazard thresholds are shown in Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1 Flood Hazard Thresholds

Flood Hazard d(v+0.5)+DF Description Alternative Name / Hazard Class

0 Safe (dry) None

0 to 0.75 Caution Low

0.75 to 1.5 Dangerous for some Moderate

1.5 to 2.5 Dangerous for most Significant

Over 2.5 Dangerous for all Extreme

For the purpose of the SFRA it is considered appropriate to provide a low hazard environment in access and egress routes associated with new housing developments. Environment Agency guidance suggests that all development should have a dry access and egress in the 1% event. This should be the aim, but in exceptional circumstances a low hazard condition may be acceptable if the flood warning is robust and occupants remain safe. Greater depth and velocity may be permitted where elevated and safe access / egress to safe ground are provided.

6.7.4 Flood Risk Mitigation

Where allocations remain in high risk flood zone areas for other material considerations, it needs to be demonstrated that technically feasible flood mitigation options are available. A fuller appreciation of the sustainability of the site and its mitigation measures will be addressed via the Sustainability Appraisal. These measures must be designed to provide an appropriate level of flood mitigation to a site for the lifetime of the development. At most sites it is technically feasible to mitigate or manage flood risk (if potential off-site impacts are ignored), however the measures required may result in some practical constraints on development and/or require significant financial cost where flood risk is high.



The fact that mitigation measures are discussed in this SFRA should not be taken as a presumption that the Sequential Test has been short-circuited. It is included to give a fuller picture of the implications of allocating a site, and for use in the subsequent SA.

Often the determining factor in deciding whether a particular development can or cannot proceed is the financial cost of flood risk mitigation rather than technical limitations. Detailed technical assessments are required in the detailed site-based FRA to assess this, together with a commercial review by the developer of the cost of the mitigation works. However it is important at the SFRA stage that allocations or areas where there is little or no chance of feasible flood risk mitigation are not recommended, because doing so could have an adverse impact on the achievement of development targets in the UDP or LDF.

The SFRA has to make some broad assumptions regarding the requirement for flood risk mitigation to ensure that only sites with realistic development potential are put forward. In this context the assumptions shown in Table 6-2 have been made. It is assumed that floor level raising will continue to be the traditional mitigation measure. It should be noted that the Environment Agency see actual land raising as a last option. This table refers to depths of flooding before mitigation measures are put in place and should not be mistaken as acceptable levels of flooding after mitigation. Thought will also be required to ensure dry access and egress is available during the 1 in 100 year event.

Table 6-2 Screening Criteria for Mitigation Measures

Depth of Inundation* Comments

0 to 1.0 m Mitigation and management may be feasible for both housing and employment purposes. Allocations may be retained.

1.0 to 1.5 m Mitigation is likely to be costly and may not be economically justifiable for low value land uses. Housing allocations are considered appropriate, provided flood risk can be managed or mitigated (e.g. by using lower levels for car parks or public areas). Floor level raising for employment purposes is unlikely to be economically viable and Employment allocations should be reconsidered in favour of alternative lower risk sites.

Above 1.5 m Flood risk mitigation measures are unlikely to be economically justifiable and both housing and Employment allocations should be reconsidered in favour of alternative lower risk sites.

Table-Notes:* Based on predicted depth of inundation for the 1% event with climate change, or from a breach event in the prime defence without land filling or floor level raising. Mitigation measures including first floor accommodation and the attendant access and egress measures, and where appropriate, land platform raising.

It is recognised that in some locations urban regeneration and redevelopment will be essential to maintain the long term viability and vitality of communities and the balance of the raft of planning considerations may support redevelopment. These social considerations may justify a relaxation of the screening criteria set out above and the retention of housing and Employment allocations in certain areas. In these instances the commercial viability of the development and risks to public safety will need to be given careful considerations during the planning of the development. A range of flood management and flood proofing measures are available that can reduce the financial impacts of flooding.

Whilst flooding mitigation measures can be implemented in most sites, it is worth noting that in some instances the findings of individual FRAs may determine that the risk of flooding to a proposed development is too great and mitigation measures are not feasible. In these instances, the development will be subject to an objection by the Environment Agency.

6.7.5 Compensation for loss of floodplain

Floodplain is a natural and important component in the management of flood risk. Floodplains can act to store water in times of flood, releasing this volume after the main peak, or provide an additional flow route or conveyance across the floodplain. In some circumstances both of these



functions may occur. Therefore its loss must limited and if it does occur the natural performance of the floodplain must be restored. There are a number of ways in which this can be done, and this test is fundamental and sometimes the floodplain function cannot be restored within the confines of the site and in those circumstance the site may not be able to be delivered.

Compensation can be dealt with in a number of ways:

1. Use the river model developed for the FRA to understand the conveyance and storage features of the proposed site. Where disrupting key flood flow routes has the greatest impact on flood risk elsewhere then the natural flow routes should be maintained within the development and where possible the overall floodplain should not be reduced. Where water is not active, and is stored within the floodplain then volumetric balancing should be provided as described below.

2. Where a hydraulic river model is not available simple volumetric balancing on a level for level basis can be undertaken using a ground model of the site. There are EA guidance notes on how to assess this. Essentially the storage lost at a particular level must be replaced at that level. Therefore if the site is wholly within the 1% flood outline it is highly unlikely that the compensation resulting from raising this area for development could be found within the site. Areas adjacent to the site in FZ2 or 1 which could be lowered and brought into play as floodplain would be required. This balancing of volume demonstrates the overriding policy direction of not building in floodplain, as it can often be very difficult to provide this compensation.

3. It is recommended that these calculations and assessment of floodplain loss is undertaken early on in the development process

6.8 Other Known Flood Risk Areas

Sites that are situated upstream of an area that is known to be susceptible to localised flooding (e.g. as a result of problematic surface water drainage) must be managed effectively to ensure that the impact upon downstream properties is fully mitigated. Wherever possible, this should be achieved through the implementation of a sustainable drainage or flow retention system, constructed within the boundaries of the development site.

The capacity of drainage infrastructure is often limited and at or near capacity under existing conditions. Development that leads to increased peak runoff within the drainage catchments may lead to infrastructure capacity being exceeded, with the potential for increased flood risk. In adopting the precautionary approach it is therefore considered prudent to manage all development, to ensure peak discharges do not increase and potential impacts on downstream properties are fully mitigated. Wherever possible, this should be achieved through the implementation of a sustainable drainage or flow retention system, constructed within the boundaries of the development site.

A flood risk assessment will be required in each instance to design appropriate mitigation measures and demonstrate that the development will not adversely affect existing flooding conditions. The FRA should define and address the constraints that will govern the design of the drainage system, as detailed in Section 3.

The effectiveness of a flow management scheme within a single site is heavily limited by site constraints including (but not limited to) topography, geology (soil permeability), and available area. The design, construction and ongoing maintenance regime of such a scheme must be carefully defined, and a clear and comprehensive understanding of the catchment hydrological processes (i.e. nature and capacity of the existing drainage system) is essential.

In these areas a flood risk assessment will be required that demonstrates that the proposed development will not adversely affect existing flooding conditions.

At the planning application stage, discussions should be held with the Environment Agency, Local Planning Authority and Northumbrian Water to ascertain the specific nature and most appropriate means of managing the flood risk.

The integration of drainage management is highlighted within the Defra strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England, detailed within the consultation document „Making



space for Water‟41. The strategy aims to achieve better overall management of surface water drainage through better co-ordination between the different bodies.

41

Defra. 2004. Making Space for Water; Developing a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England, A consultation exercise.



7 CONCLUSION

7.1 Introduction

It must be made clear that this SFRA does not preclude the need for site specific flood risk assessments. Site specific flood risk assessments will be required for all development within Zones 2 and 3, and for all development with the catchment of a Critical Ordinary Watercourse (COW) or Internal Drainage District (IDD). A FRA will also be required for all operational development greater than 1ha in size in Zone 1.

In the instance where development sites lie with former COW, IDD areas or other sensitive areas the FRA should be discussed with the relevant body such as the Internal Drainage Board, sewerage undertakers, highways authority and reservoir owners and operators prior to application. This SFRA has provided a map identifying former COWs and IDD to facilitate this process. The Environment Agency standing advice also identifies those higher risk development situations where case by case consultation with the Agency should continue.

7.2 Level 2 SFRA

The Level 1 assessment contained herein identifies where it would be appropriate for each council to undertake a level 2 SFRA. These more detailed assessments would concentrate on specific locations where flood risk has been identified as a critical issue but development is still required to meet the wider sustainable objectives.

Those sites identified will need to follow the Exception Test criteria and assess whether the sites or allocations would in all likelihood pass the Test and be deliverable. The test is as follows:

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 PPS 12: Local Development Frameworks) the benefits of the development should contribute to the Core Strategy‟s Sustainability Appraisal (SA).

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.

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.

A level 2 SFRA will help provide the next stage of information and will further collate the evidence base within each LDF to facilitate the application of the Exception Test. The investigations carried out within the level 2 SFRA will inform the flood risk balance sheet and confirm the sequential approach to site layout and the design of possible mitigation measures.

Suggested level 2 SFRA locations include but are not limited to:

The peripheries of the main towns of Prudhoe, Hexham and Haltwhistle where key strategic future development sites are most likely to be located

Any significant site suggestions within the built-up areas of these main settlements

The area of safeguarded land to the north of Corbridge

The built up areas of Corbridge and the remaining secondary settlements of Haydon Bridge, Bellingham and Allendale.

It will be for the new Northumberland Planning Authority and/or the NNPA to take forward a programme of Level 2 assessments



7.3 Surface Water Management Plans

Surface water flooding is a major source of flood risk and as demonstrated by the summer 2007 floods can lead to serious flooding of property and possessions.

Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP), introduced in PPS25 and more recently within the Pitt Review, are being discussed as playing an important and crucial role in managing surface water flooding and reducing overall flood risk, both for existing and new development.

It has long been recognised that there are fragmented responsibilities for managing surface water drainage. By developing a shared understanding of local flood risks, prioritisation of actions, maintenance needs and links into local development frameworks and emergency plans, SWMPs could provide a much needed co-ordination mechanism helping mitigate and reduce flood risk to local communities. SWMPs also have the wider opportunity to reduce clean-up costs and improve water quality.

These concepts are imbedded in the Governments new Water Strategy, Future Water42

setting out a vision for more effective drainage of surface water, in order to deal with the duel pressures of climate change and housing development.

In order to achieve this, SWMPs should:

Map and quantify surface flows and drainage with sufficient detail to enable local as well as strategic flooding problems to be tackled.

Produce a delivery plan that clarifies responsibilities and then directs resources at tackling surface water, prioritising areas at greatest risk first.

Influence local planning policy such that new development occurs primarily in areas of low surface water flood risk43 or where flood risk can be managed effectively, making use of sustainable drainage solutions where appropriate.

Be periodically reviewed, possibly including independent scrutiny of planning and resource decisions to gauge progress in tackling the most serious problems.

The evidence supplied within this SFRA has identified those areas which are naturally vulnerable to surface water flooding by providing a suite of vulnerability maps for key areas where local flooding has been recorded. These maps, along with areas known to be sensitive to climate change and have high development pressures, should give each council an indication of locations which would benefit from a SWMP.

Using the information provided, suggested SWMP locations include but are not limited to:

Hexham

Haltwhistle

Prudhoe

Hexham is recommended as a priority area to apply the SWMP approach.

A detailed practice guide on SWMPs will be produced within Defra‟s Water Strategy with draft guidance published in March 2009.. Until a SWMP has been completed, all developments should adhere to the guidance in PPS25 and the recommendations outlined in Section 6.7. Integrated drainage solutions should be prepared for larger sites or areas.

7.4 Water Cycle Studies

Water Cycle Studies (WCS) are an all encompassing study of the capacity in water supply, waste water infrastructure and water in the environment, aimed at those regions that are expecting growth. Its main aim is to ensure that new development can be supplied with the required water services it needs in a sustainable way. WCS can include a SWMP, but the issues within Tynedale are such that the SWMP would be the more critical plan, with a review and a brief scoping study of water management issues undertaken primarily focused on sewage treatment capacities.

42

Foresight (2008) Future Flooding. http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Previous_Projects/Flood_and_Coastal_Defence/index.html 43

Defra (2006) Scoping study: Integrated Urban Drainage Pilots

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/scoperev.pdf

http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Previous_Projects/Flood_and_Coastal_Defence/index.html

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/scoperev.pdf



Therefore a SWMP and where necessary a WCS should be twin tracked in Tynedale when they are prepared for the areas of growth. Monitoring

This SFRA should be viewed as a „living‟ document which should be used in the day-to-day process of planning and development.

Whilst this SFRA has been produced using the most up-to-date national guidance and flood risk data (including climate change), it is recommended that the SFRA should be updated on a regular basis. The Environment Agency has suggested this be every 3 to 4 years, unless there is a significant flood affecting the areas, giving rise to new information or areas at flood risk, or there are any major national policy changes.

There are key outputs from a number of possible future studies which should be incorporated in any update. Including:

Final version of the Tyne CFMP.

Flood risk mapping studies.

Flood risk management studies.



APPENDICES



Appendix A: - Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park: Sequential and Exception Tests



A.1 TYNEDALE DISTRICT COUNCIL & NORTHUMBERLAND NATIONAL PARK AREA

A.1.1 Allendale

The settlement of Allendale is located in the south of the district area. Use Map 06 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The eastern tributary to the River Allen flows to the west side of the urban centre. There is a historical record of flooding west of the main settlement of Allendale. The majority of the settlement is outside of the floodzones with the exception of Bridge End. Potential developments here would need to meet the requirements of the exceptions test. Of the options proposed for consideration as LDF site allocations 16 sites are outside floodzones 2 and 3 and are considered below. Further detail is supplied for the sites that partially or wholly lie within floodzones 2 and 3.

A.1.1.1 Allendale: Flood Zone 1

The following sites are located in Flood Zone 1 and are not, therefore, considered to be at significant risk to fluvial or tidal flooding. Other sources of flood risk, such as overland flow routes or groundwater, will still need to be considered by potential developers. A Flood Risk Assessment, appropriate to the scale nature and location of the development will be required for all developments greater than 1 ha in size.

Site Area (ha)

Catchment Historical Flood on Site?

FRA required?

% Area Climate Change

Development Status at March 2008

SA030: Broadwood Hall (1) 12.78 RIVER ALLEN NO YES


SA031: Broadwood Hall (2) 0.12 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


SA058: Allendale Highways Depot & HWRC 0.78 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


SA1029: North of Allendale Middle School (Local Plan Allocation LR8.5) 1.09 RIVER ALLEN NO YES


SA1030: South of Allendale 1.1 RIVER ALLEN NO YES


SA108: Thornley gate Farm 1.2 RIVER ALLEN NO YES


SA116: Land South of Spilitty Lane 0.86 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


SA168: Land adjacent to Rectory Cottage, Lonkey 0.32 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


SA169: Land South of Viewlands, Shilburn Road 0.29 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


SA171: Land East of Allenfields 0.13 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


SA2005: Former 0.21 RIVER ALLEN NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF



Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



Dale Hotel - site 1 site allocation

SA2006: Former Allendale Garage 0.03 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


SA2046: Land at Lonkley Bank 0.54 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


SA2048: Land at Shilburn (part Portgate) 8.05 RIVER ALLEN NO YES 0.3


SA2056: Landplot at Allendale 1.28 RIVER ALLEN NO YES


SA230: Dale garage, Allendale 0.07 RIVER ALLEN NO NO


A.1.1.2 Allendale: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Land at Bridge End

Size (ha): 0.2

Reference: SA096

Development Status in March 2008:


Land use suggested by proposer of site::

Housing

Catchment: RIVER ALLEN

Flood Zones: FZ1 0% FZ2 0% FZ3a 100%

FZ3b 0% Climate Change 100%

Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average 1-1.5 Maximum >1.5

Defended:

Record of Historical Flooding :

Soil Type: Slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged fine loamy soils

Indicative Suitability for SuDs: Low

Brown / Greenfield: GREENFIELD


Exception Test applicable: Yes, if site were used for 'more' vulnerable development, as indicated

Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 100% in FZ3a and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: All of the site is located in the high probability Flood Zone 3a.

Water compatible development should be considered for this site.



Site Name: Land at Shilburn

Size (ha): 4.43

Reference: SA2047







Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average <1.0 Maximum >1.5

Defended:



Indicative Suitability for SuDs: Medium/Low




Site Name: Land at Shilburn


Exception Test applicable: Yes, if FZ3 areas were used for 'more' vulnerable development or essential infrastructure

Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 93% in FZ1, but Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc


Consider withdrawing the site boundary or water compatible development for high risk areas.

If the Council intends to allocate this site for development or award planning approval, they should assess the need for development through the spatial planning process.


A.1.2 Bellingham

The settlement of Bellingham is in the north of the district. It is centrally placed within the North Tyne river valley. Use Map 07 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Hareshaw Burn flows south through the area‟s urban centre before it joins the North Tyne which continues to flow along the southern edge of the town in an easterly direction. There are six incidents of historic flooding occurring in and around the settlement of Bellingham outside the reach of floodzones 2 and 3. In this area consideration to all sources of flooding is particularly crucial. Of the options proposed for consideration as LDF site allocations 7 sites were outside floodzones 2 and 3 and are considered below. Further detail is supplied for the sites that partially or wholly lie within floodzones 2 and 3 below.

A.1.2.1 Bellingham: Flood Zone 1

The following sites are located in Flood Zone 1 and are not, therefore, considered to be at significant risk to fluvial or tidal flooding. Other sources of flood risk, such as overland flow routes or groundwater, will still need to be considered by potential developers. A Flood Risk Assessment, appropriate to the scale nature and location of the development, will be required for all developments greater than 1 ha in size.

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



Composite site 31: inclusive of SA173, SA2051

1.87 HARESHAW BURN

NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA111: Briar Hill 0.57 HARESHAW BURN

NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA172: Land adjacent Westfield House and St Oswalds Court

0.44 RIVER NORTH TYNE


SA2069: The Old School, Bellingham

0.42 HARESHAW BURN


SA243: Former YHA and land West of Bellingham

1.33 HARESHAW BURN


SA244: North of Caravan Park Bellingham

0.71 HARESHAW BURN


SA245: North of Old School, Bellingham

1.06 HARESHAW BURN




A.1.2.2 Bellingham: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Land S of The Rectory

Size (ha): 0.3

Reference: SA2039




Catchment: RIVER NORTH TYNE



Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average >1.5 Maximum >1.5

Defended:

Record of Historical Flooding : YES

Soil Type: Deep well drained coarse loamy and sandy soils, sometimes over gravel, sometimes affected by groundwater

Indicative Suitability for SuDs: Medium



Exception Test applicable: Yes, if FZ3 areas were used for 'more' vulnerable development or essential infrastructure or if FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/LOW - 35% in FZ1 but 60% in FZ3b, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc







A.1.3 Corbridge

The settlement of Corbridge is located in the centre east of the district. Use Map 08 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The River Tyne flows along the south side of the area‟s urbanised centre. There are three incidents of historic flooding recorded in the Corbridge built area. Two of these are beyond floodzones 2 and 3. South of the River Tyne there are four further recorded historic flooding incidents. There are defences with an SOP of 25 years on the north bank of the Tyne and to 75 years on the south. Care should be taken to ensure all sources of flooding are well thought-out when considering allocating sites for potential development. Of the options proposed for consideration as LDF site allocations none are within floodzone 2 or 3.

A.1.3.1 Corbridge: Flood Zone 1


Site Area (ha)


FRA required?




2.53 RIVER TYNE NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

Composite site 15: inclusive of SA1016, SA070, SA1034, SA166


SA105: Land at Corchester


SA118: Red Cross Hall

0.14 RIVER TYNE NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA119: Princes St Garage


SA132: The Hayes 4.01 RIVER TYNE NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA167: The Riggs Estate


SA2067: Land N of Jamieson Drive


SA242: Howden Dene


A.1.3.2 Corbridge: Floods Zones 2 & 3

None of the sites in this area are located in Flood Zones 2 or 3.



A.1.4 Haltwhistle

The settlement of Haltwhistle is located to the south west of the district. Tipalt Burn joins the South Tyne to the south west side of the area‟s urbanised centre and Haltwhistle Burn joins at the south east. The South Tyne then continues to flow in an easterly direction. Use Map 03 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Formal defences with an SOP up to 100 years are immediately south of the urban centre. There are 11 historically recorded incidents of flooding in this area that all fall outside of floodzones 2 and 3. In this area consideration to all sources of flooding is particularly crucial. Of the options proposed for consideration as LDF site allocations 18 sites were outside floodzones 2 and 3 and are considered below. Further detail is supplied for the sites that partially or wholly lie within floodzones 2 and 3 below.

A.1.4.1 Haltwhistle: Flood Zone 1


Site Area (ha)


FRA required?




1.11 HALTWHISTLE BURN

NO YES 0.15 Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation


0.29 River South Tyne


Composite site 26: inclusive of SA149, SA183, SA2020

0.79 Haltwhistle Burn





Composite site 8: inclusive of SA1010, SA209, SA226, SA170, SA192

2.18 RIVER SOUTH TYNE


SA1011: Elmfield Comb Hill



SA185: Land to West of Park Road. Haltwhistle

2.91 TIPALT BURN NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA193: Land East of Park Road and North of Parklands



SA194: Land to West of Park Road and East of North Lodge


SA195: Land North of A69 and South of Railway


SA208: Land to West of South Tynedale School



SA210: Comb Hill, Dunholme Farm



SA211: Land either side South of Dunholme





Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA212: Land South of Hillcroft, Comb Hill



SA214: South-West of River House



SA215: Land at Townfoot area, opposite Hadrian Flats



SA262: Ashcroft Croft



A.1.4.2 Haltwhistle: Floods Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Composite Site 9

Size (ha): 13.34

Reference: C9 (inclusive of SA1001, SA145)




Mixed Use

Catchment: RIVER SOUTH TYNE




Defended:


Soil Type: Deep stoneless permeable coarse loamy soils, over gravel in places

Indicative Suitability for SuDs: High



Exception Test applicable: Yes, if site were used for 'more' vulnerable development or essential infrastructure

Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 90% in FZ3b, max indicative depth >1.5m and Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: 90% of the site is located within Flood Zone 3b.




Site Name: Old railway land South of metal bridge, East end

Size (ha): 0.74

Reference: SA206




Recreation, Housing




Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average <1.0 Maximum <1.0

Defended:


Soil Type: Deep stoneless permeable coarse loamy soils


Brown / Greenfield: BROWNFIELD


Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'more' or 'less' vulnerable development.



Site Name: Old railway land South of metal bridge, East end

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 71% in FZ1 but 28% in FZ3b, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5 m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Land to North of Old By-pass, East of Lanty

Size (ha): 0.79

Reference: SA207




Recreation

Catchment: HALTWHISTLE BURN




Defended:


Soil Type: Very stony well drained loamy soils




Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'less' vulnerable development as indicated, but the test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 67% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3 but Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc


None of the site is in the highest risk Flood Zone 3.





A.1.5 Haydon Bridge

Haydon Bridge is located is in the centre west of the district. The South Tyne flows through the area‟s urbanised centre. Use Map 09 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Formal defences exist along the north and south banks of the South Tyne with a SOP of up to 100 years. There are 18 incidents of flooding recorded in the Haydon Bridge area. Seven of these have been recorded beyond floodzones 2 and 3. In these areas consideration to all sources of flooding is particularly crucial, specifically surface water flooding. Of the options proposed for consideration as LDF site allocations 5 sites were outside floodzones 2 and 3 and are considered below. Further detail is supplied for the sites that partially or wholly lie within floodzones 2 and 3 below.

A.1.5.1 Haydon Bridge: Flood Zone 1


Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA026: SA026: The Brickworks, Langley



SA114: SA114: Maresfield



SA133: Belmont Stables



SA2028: Site at Peelwell



SA2055: Church Street Industrial Site


NO NO 100 Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

A.1.5.2 Haydon: Floods Zones 2 & 3


Size (ha): 28.87

Reference: C12 (inclusive of SA134, SA029, SA227)




Mixed Use





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 94% in FZ1, but Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Consider withdrawing the site boundary or water compatible development for high risk areas. If the Council intends to allocate this site for development or award planning approval, they should assess the need for development through the spatial planning process.


Site Name: West Mill Hills, Haydon Bridge (1)

Size (ha): 0.91

Reference: SA043







Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average Maximum

Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Yes if FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/HIGH - 74% in FZ1, also Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feesibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: West Mills (2)

Size (ha): 1.07

Reference: SA1013








Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'more' vulnerable development, but test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/HIGH- 47% in FZ1 and 0% in FZ3 and Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feesibility of mitigation measures etc



Water compatible development should be considered for Flood Zone 2 areas.



Site Name: West Mills (2)



Site Name: Coal Cells

Size (ha): 0.35

Reference: SA135




Housing, General Development





Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'more' or 'less' vulnerable development as indicated, but test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 77% in FZ1, 7% in FZ3 and Brownfield, but max indicative depth >1.5; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc




Site Name: Anchor Garage at Shaftoe Street

Size (ha): 0.09

Reference: SA174




Housing





Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'more' vulnerable development as indicated, but the test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 0% in FZ3 and Brownfield but only 19% in FZ1 and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc




A Flood Risk Assessment will be required to assess other sources of



Site Name: Anchor Garage at Shaftoe Street

flooding and any mitigation measures required.

Site Name: Land at Brigwood, Taits Yard

Size (ha): 0.46

Reference: SA175




Housing




Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average <1.0 Maximum 1-1.5

Defended: Flood walls on Tyne






Exception Test applicable: Yes, if FZ3 areas were used for 'more' vulnerable development, as indicated, or essential infrastructure or if FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/LOW - 16% in FZ1 and Brownfield, but 24% in FZ3a and max indicative depth >1.5; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Land West of Langley Gardens

Size (ha): 1.16

Reference: SA176




Housing





Defended: Flood walls on Tyne






Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'more' vulnerable development as indicated, but test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM- 48% in FZ1 and 0% in FZ3 but Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc







Site Name: Land E of St. Cuthberts Vicarage

Size (ha): 0.07

Reference: SA2041








Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 84% in FZ1 and Brownfield but max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.6 Hexham

The settlement of Hexham is located in the centre of the district. The River Tyne flows along the north edge of the area‟s urbanised centre. Use Map 04 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Formal flood defences lie on the south bank of the River Tyne that have a SOP of 25 years. Cockshaw Burn flows north from the south west through the centre of Hexham with defences that have a SOP up to 20 years. Halgut Burn also flows north from the south east of Hexham through the centre until it flows into Cockshaw Burn. In Hexham there are 50 incidents of flooding recorded where the majority lie outside of floodzone 2 or 3. In these areas consideration to all sources of flooding is particularly crucial. Of the options proposed for consideration as LDF site allocations 36 sites were outside floodzones 2 and 3 and are considered below. Further detail is supplied for the sites that partially or wholly lie within floodzones 2 and 3 below.

A.1.6.1 Hexham: Flood Zone 1


Site Area (ha)


FRA required?





Composite site 22: inclusive of SA041,

4.09 Halgut Burn NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as



Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA2052 LDF site allocation


2.15 Halgut Burn NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA022: Eilansgate House

0.08 COCKSHAW BURN


SA027: Sunningdale, Corbridge Road


SA040: High Shield Cottage, Dipton Mill (1) (NW of)

2.72 HALGUT BURN


SA044: Land at Bridge End adjoining roundabout


SA045: Land at Bridge End adjoining slip road


SA093: Black House water Treatment Works

0.15 HALGUT BURN


SA1007: Bus Station Site (Local Plan allocation RT4.1)

0.16 HALGUT BURN


SA1009: Loosing Hill / Torch Centre


SA1028: Dukes House Wood (part)


SA1031: Shaws Park (Local Plan Allocation (LR8.2)


SA112: Garage, West Road


SA120: Broadway Garage

0.1 COCKSHAW BURN


SA140: Land at Wydon Burn

0.14 HALGUT BURN


SA141: Hackwood Park School

0.97 HALGUT BURN


SA154: Land North of Sheild Croft Farm

0.37 HALGUT BURN


SA155: Land East of Priestlands Drive

0.07 HALGUT BURN


SA156: Land South of Beaufront Avenue


SA157: Land North of Eilansgate

0.52 COCKSHAW BURN


SA158: Land at Middle Sheild Farm

1.58 HALGUT BURN




Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA159: Swimming Pool Market Street

0.14 HALGUT BURN


SA160: Land South of Craneshaugh/ Patterson Ford


SA162: Hospital land at Dean Street


SA190: West Orchard House

0.43 COCKSHAW BURN


SA191: Graves Yard (Old Fire Station), Hencotes

0.1 COCKSHAW BURN


SA2017: Golf Club - area 1

1.39 COCKSHAW BURN


SA2018: Golf Club - area 2

2.06 COCKSHAW BURN


SA2029: Orchard Gap

0.79 COCKSHAW BURN


SA2071: Shield Croft Farm

1.85 HALGUT BURN


SA2074: Tel Exchange Gaprigg (East)

0.21 HALGUT BURN


SA2075: Tel Exchange Gaprigg (West)

0.3 HALGUT BURN


SA2078: Land at Bywell Avenue


SA258: Land at Highford Park

4.22 COCKSHAW BURN


SA260: Lowgate First School

1.36 COCKSHAW BURN


A.1.6.2 Hexham: Floods Zones 2 & 3


Size (ha): 16.73

Reference: C2 (inclusive of SA059, SA265




Catchment: RIVER TYNE




Defended:


Soil Type: Deep stoneless permeable fine loamy soils, variably affected by groundwater







Exception Test applicable: Yes, if site were used for 'more' vulnerable development, as indicated, or essential infrastructure

Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 97% in FZ3a, also Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: 97% of the site is located in the high probability Flood Zone 3a.





Size (ha): 0.4





Housing

Catchment: Cockshaw Burn




Defended: raised defence (man-made)


Soil Type: Urbanised. No soil information available

Indicative Suitability for SuDs: Unknown




Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 100% in FZ3a and max indicative depth >1.5m but Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc






Size (ha): 0.15





Housing

Catchment: COCKSHAW BURN




Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 100% in FZ3a but max indicative depth <1.0m and Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc




Recommendations: All of the site is located in the highest risk Flood Zone 3a.





Size (ha): 25.39





Mixed Use





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 71% in FZ1, 23% in FZ3b but Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Beaufort Park, Anick Road

Size (ha): 0.41

Reference: SA023




Housing





Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'more' vulnerable development as indicated, but test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 100% in FZ3a, also Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc




Site Name: Beaufort Park, Anick Road




Site Name: The Bunker Site

Size (ha): 2.3

Reference: SA024




Housing





Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Yes, if FZ3a areas were used for 'more' vulnerable development, as indicated, or essential infrastructure or if FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development

Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 95% in FZ3a, and max indicative depth >1.5m, but Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: 95% of the site is located in the high probability Flood Zone 3a.




Site Name: Hexham Goods Yard

Size (ha): 3.65

Reference: SA1005




Mixed use





Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Yes if FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 40% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3 and Brownfield but max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc






Site Name: Hexham Goods Yard


Site Name: Tyne Green

Size (ha): 17.3

Reference: SA147




Economic development, Tourism, Mixed use





Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Yes, if FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development or FZ3 areas for 'more vulnerable' development or essential infrastructure.

Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 1% in FZ1, 87% in FZ3, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: Only 1% of the site is located in Flood Zone 1.




Site Name: Westacres, Allendale Road

Size (ha): 1.09

Reference: SA2049








Defended:




Brown / Greenfield: MIXED


Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'more' or 'less' vulnerable development, but test will be applicable if FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 65% in FZ1 but 31% in FZ3b, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5 m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc







Site Name: Land at Chareway

Size (ha): 1.1

Reference: SA229




Housing





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 75% in FZ1 and only 9% in FZ3a, also Brownfield and max indicative depth <1.0m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Fewsters Site

Size (ha): 1.28

Reference: SA60




Commercial, Retail, Economic Development, Hotel, Housing





Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'less' vulnerable development as indicated, but test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH- 69% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3, Brownfield and not predicted to flood in modelled scenario; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc







A.1.7 Prudhoe

The settlement of Prudhoe is located in the east of the district. The River Tyne flows to the north of the area‟s urbanised centre. Use Map 05 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Formal flood defences are situated on the south bank of the River Tyne that have a SOP of up to 100 years. There are 14 incidents of flooding recorded in the Prudhoe area. 12 of these are recorded beyond the floodzones 2 and 3. In these areas consideration to all sources of flooding is particularly crucial, specifically surface water flooding. Of the options proposed for consideration as LDF site allocations 33 sites were outside floodzones 2 and 3 and are considered below. Further detail is supplied for the sites that partially or wholly lie within floodzones 2 and 3 below.

A.1.7.1 Prudhoe: Flood Zone 1


Site Area (ha)


FRA required?











SA014: Land at Whinny Bank


SA015: Hall Yards Farm (1)


SA016: Hall Yard Farm (2)










SA033: Moor View 2.85 RIVER TYNE NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA089: Site South of Miners Cottages, Mickley




Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA099: Prudhoe Hospital Site

49.07 RIVER TYNE NO YES 0.01 Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA1022: Eastgate House


SA1025: North of Bypass

3.35 RIVER TYNE NO YES 84.41 Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA137: Land at Stoneybank Way


SA148: Allotments at Mickley Square


SA152: Land at Moor Rd South (2)


SA153: Land at Highfield North (Moor Rd 1)


SA177: Land North of Castle View


SA178: Land adjacent West Road Cemetery


SA179: Land adjacent Holyoake Street


SA186: Highfield Lane


SA2057: Greenlaw 3.84 RIVER TYNE NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA2059: Fire Station 0.14 RIVER TYNE NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA2070: Land at Mickley Square


SA2073: Eastwoods Farm


SA2079: Former Garage, FairView


SA2080: Former Garage, Swalwell Close


SA238: Castle Allotment Site


SA239: Eastwoods Allotment Site


SA240: Edgewell House




A.1.7.2 Prudhoe: Floods Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: South of Bypass

Size (ha): 4.15

Reference: SA1026




Economic development





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 93% in FZ1 and 0% in FZ3, but Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: The majority of the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is therefore available for development.

Consider withdrawing the site boundary or water compatible development for higher risk areas.



Site Name: South of Dukes Road

Size (ha): 2.28

Reference: SA1027




Economic development





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 24% in FZ1 but 55% in FZ3a, Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc







Site Name: Edgewell

Size (ha): 3.45

Reference: SA241




Housing





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 98% in FZ1 and only 2% in FZ3a but Greenfield but max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc


Consider withdrawing the site boundary or water compatible development for FZ3 areas.



A.1.8 Northumberland National Park Areas

None of the suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations identified within Tynedale for this study fall within the Northumberland National Park boundary. This section will provide an overview of flood risk within settlements that the Park Authority envisage may need consideration in the future.

A.1.8.1 Falstone

Falstone is located in the north of the district, downstream of Kielder Water on the northern bank of River North Tyne. Use Map 11 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The majority of Falstone is within floodzones 2 and 3, with defences that provide SOP of up to 25 years and has Falstone Burn that flows south through Falstone into the River North Tyne. Consideration of developments in this area would be subject to a detailed FRA to demonstrate consideration of all sources of flooding. The locality of this settlement to Kielder Reservoir would require consideration of the possible impacts of overtopping or breach in the FRA.

A.1.8.2 Stannersberg

Stannersberg is located in the north of the district, downstream of Kielder Water on the southern bank of River North Tyne. Use Map 11 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The majority of Stannersberg is outside of floodzone 2 or 3. The locality of this settlement to Kielder Reservoir would require consideration of the possible impacts of overtopping or breach in an FRA.

A.1.8.3 Charlton

Charlton is located in the north of the District on the east of Charlton Burn that flows south into the North River Tyne. Use Map 07 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The developed areas of Charlton are outside floodzones 2 and 3.



A.1.8.4 Greenhaugh

The Greenhaugh settlement is situated in the north of the district, within the Northumberland National Park area. Greenhaugh Burn flows through Greenhaugh from the north east and into Tarset Burn at the south west of the settlement. Use Map 07 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The built area of Greenhaugh is outside the floodzones 2 and 3. The potential of flooding from the Greenhaugh Burn should be taken into account when considering flood risks in this area.

A.1.8.5 Lanehead

Lanehead is a settlement in the north of the district to the east of the Tarset Burn. Use Map 07 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Lanehead is outside floodzones 2 and 3, there are no obvious flood risks in this area. There are some small drains that flow from Lanehead into Tarset Burn that should be taken into consideration when considering flood risks in this area.

A.1.8.6 Rochester

Rochester is in the northern area of the district, situated east of the confluence of Sills Burn and the River Rede. Use Map 12 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Rochester lies outside of the floodzones 2 and 3. The flood risks from Sills Burn and the River Rede need to be considered.

A.1.8.7 Elsdon

Elsdon is situated outside of the Tynedale District area to the north east, with Elsdon Burn draining through the west of the settlement and then south, where the Whiskershiel Burn flows into it. The Elsdon Burn flows in a westerly direction into the River Rede. Use Map 10 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The built area of Elsdon in partially within floodzone 2 and 3 and is contained within a small network of drains. The flood risk from each Burn and further drains should particularly be taken into account when considering any development within the Elsdon area.

A.1.8.8 Stonehaugh

Stonehaugh is centrally located within the district. Warks Burn and Middle Burn converge on the western side of this settlement. Use Map 13 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The developed area of Stonehaugh is beyond the floodzone 2 and 3 outlines. There are several drains around Stonehaugh that should be taken into account when considering flood risk.

A.1.9 Remaining Sustainable settlements

Below is the site by site analysis for those located within each of the Sustainable Settlements as identified by Tynedale District Council in August 2008. Each settlement is introduced spatially and its orientation to known flood risks described to assist identifying current and future flood risk.

A.1.9.1 Gilsland

Gilsland is in the south west area of the district. The River Irthing flows southwardly through Gilsland, incorporating some of the developed land in floodzone 2 and 3. Use Map 03 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

Gilsland: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA2001: Land E of Riversdale

0.11 RIVER IRTHING


A.1.9.2 Greenhead

Greenhead is in the south west of the district. Tipalt Burn flows from north to the south through Greenhead, with Greenhead Cleugh culverted through the built area. Use Map 03 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. There are two recorded historical flood events recorded outside of the floodzones 2 and 3.



Greenhead: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA139: Former Colliery Site at Blenkinsopp

0.62 TIPALT BURN NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA196: Land to North of Greenhead Bank, West of B6318


SA199: Land North of Greenwhelt Bank


SA202: Land to South of access to A69


SA203: Land SW of land South to access road A69


Greenhead Flood Zone 2 & 3

Site Name: Infill Site adjacent to Mill House

Size (ha): 0.06

Reference: SA197




Housing

Catchment: TIPALT BURN




Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 100% in FZ3a, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: All of the site is located in the highest risk Flood Zone 3a.




Site Name: West of Greenwhelt

Size (ha): 1.06

Reference: SA198




Housing





Defended:




Site Name: West of Greenwhelt






Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - Only 10% in FZ1, 86% in FZ3a, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: Only 10% of the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is therefore available for development.




Site Name: Unnamed

Size (ha): 0.42

Reference: SA200




Housing





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/HIGH - 87% in FZ1 but 12% in FZ3a and 3b, also Greenfield and max indicative depth 1.0-1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Land to West of School

Size (ha): 0.5

Reference: SA201




Housing





Defended:



Site Name: Land to West of School







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 68% in FZ1 but 10% in FZ3a, also Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.3 Acomb

Acomb is situated north of Hexham, with Red Burn flowing along the northern edge and through Acomb on the southwest. Bikely Burn flows east to west along the south of Acomb, where Red Burn, Bikely Burn flow into the River Tyne. Use Map 04 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Acomb is partially within the floodzones 2 and 3 and has three incidents of historical flooding recorded. Due to the network of water flow around Acomb fluvial flooding and appropriate urban drainage is an important consideration.

Acomb: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



C16: Composite Site 1.86 RED BURN NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA067: Town Foot Farm

0.26 RED BURN NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA068: White House 0.43 RED BURN NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA1002: Acomb Industrial Estate (part) (local Plan Allocation ED1.21)


SA2027: Land at Laburnum House, Main Street


SA221: Land at The Riding Estate, Riding Estate

4.01 RED BURN NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

Acomb: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Former Colliery Site

Size (ha): 1.28

Reference: SA078



Land use suggested by proposer Housing



Site Name: Former Colliery Site

of site::

Catchment: RED BURN




Defended:


Soil Type: Deep fine loamy soil with slowly permeable subsoil. Slight seasonal waterlogging





Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 93% in FZ1, only 3% in FZ3 and Brownfield, max indicative depth <1m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Land E of Crossbank

Size (ha): 7.96

Reference: SA2045




Catchment: RED BURN




Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH- 96% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3 but Greenfield and max indicative depth is >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc



Consider withdrawing the site boundary or water compatible development for Flood Zone 2 areas.





Site Name: Land at Garden House Farm

Size (ha): 0.3

Reference: SA264




Housing

Catchment: RED BURN




Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - Only 6% in FZ1 and 71% in FZ3a and 3b but max indicative depth <1.0m and Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: Only 6% of the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is therefore available for development.




A.1.9.4 Mickley Square

Mickley Square is located to the south west of Prudhoe. It is outside of floodzones 2 and 3 but does have a record of historical flooding in its centre. Use Map 05 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. All sources of flooding should be assessed when considering development in this area to identify where previous causes of flooding are and whether it can be managed.

A.1.9.5 Ovingham

Ovingham is north of Prudhoe on the north bank of the River Tyne. There are six records of historic flooding in this area with some beyond the floodzone 2 and 3 extents. Use Map 05 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. All sources of flooding should be assessed when considering development in this area to identify where the previous cause of flooding is or can be managed.

Ovingham: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?





SA254: North of cemetery




Ovingham: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Sweethope Loughs

Size (ha): 2.48

Reference: SA021








Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH- 99% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3a or b and max indicative depth is negligible but Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc


None of the site is in the highest risk Flood Zone 3a or b. Consider withdrawing the site boundary or water compatible development for Flood Zone 2 areas.



Site Name: Bleach Green Farm

Size (ha): 8.21

Reference: SA032




Housing




Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average 1-1.5 Maximum > 1.5

Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/LOW - 56% in FZ1, 30% in FZ3a also Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc






Site Name: Bleach Green Farm


A.1.9.6 Stocksfield

Stocksfield is in the south east of the district with Stocksfield Burn flowing in a northerly direction across its western edge. Use Map 05 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Much of Stocksfield is within floodzones 2 and 3 and four incidents of historical flooding have been recorded within the area. All sources of flooding should be assessed when considering development in this area to identify where the previous cause of flooding is or can be managed.

Stocksfield: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA061: Land at Stocksfield South A695

16.61 STOCKSFIELD BURN


SA1015: Adjacent Stocksfield Station



SA130: Old Ridley 13.19 STOCKSFIELD BURN


SA231: Branch end garage



Stocksfield: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Merryshields

Size (ha): 94.92

Reference: SA2030








Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 83% in FZ1, 17% in FZ3b but Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc







A.1.9.7 Wylam

The Holeyn Hall Tributary flows south into the River Tyne to the south west of Wylam. Use Map 05 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Floodzones 2 and 3 overlap large portions of developed area in Wylam. There is one recorded historical flood event in Wylam that resides outside of the floodzones. The source and cause of flooding in this area could indicate an ongoing issue that would need to be taken into assessment when considering flood risk in this area.

Wylam: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?




1.05 HOLEYN HALL TRIBUTARY


Wylam: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Wylam Pumping Station

Size (ha): 0.8

Reference: SA081




Housing, Economic development, Recreation, Mixed use





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 31% in FZ1 but Brownfield and max indicative depth <1.0m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: 31% of the site is located in Flood Zone 1.




Site Name: Bythorne Farm

Size (ha): 1.06

Reference: SA095




Housing





Defended:






Site Name: Bythorne Farm




Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 59% in FZ1, 17% in FZ3b, also Brownfield and max indicative depth 1-1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc




Site Name: Wylam Hills Cottage

Size (ha): 1.65

Reference: SA1023




Housing

Catchment: HOLEYN HALL TRIBUTARY




Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 58% in FZ1 but 41% in FZ3b, Greenfield and max indicative depth <1.0 m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Wylam Hall

Size (ha): 1.8

Reference: SA204




Catchment: HOLEYN HALL TRIBUTARY




Defended:








Site Name: Wylam Hall


Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 91% in FZ1, 6% in FZ3b and Greenfield but max indicative depth <1.0m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.8 Broomhaugh/ Riding Mill

Broomhaugh and Riding Mill are two settlements located south of the River Tyne separated by Tyne Valley rail line. The Ridingmill Burn flows from the south in a northerly direction through the centres of Broomhaugh and Riding Mill before it flows into the River Tyne. Most of Broomhaugh, and parts of Riding Mill, are in floodzones. Use Map 08 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. There are four incidents of historic flooding recorded in the Broomhaugh and Riding Mill area, where two of these are outside of the floodzones 2 and 3. The source and cause of flooding in this area could indicate an ongoing issue that would need to be taken into assessment when considering flood risk in this area.

Broomhaugh/ Riding Mill: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?





SA042: Land at Broomhaugh


SA098: Land West of Sandy Lane


SA2044: Land E of Whiteside


A.1.9.9 Otterburn

The Otterburn settlement is in the north of the district on Otter Burn where it flows in a southerly direction into the River Rede. The south area of Otterburn is within floodzones 2 and 3. There are no historical incidents of flooding recorded in this area. Use Map 10 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The developable area is restrained by the extent of the functional floodplain around the confluence of the Otter Burn and the River Rede, as detailed below by the proposed option for consideration as LDF site allocation: SA001 which is largely within the floodzones and functional floodplain.

Otterburn: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?






0.62 OTTER BURN NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation


0.44 RIVER REDE NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA053: Otterburn Highways Depot


SA057: Otterburn First School (2)

3.26 OTTER BURN NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA087: Otterburn Water Treatment Works


SA2022: Land adj. to Redewater View


Otterburn: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Ray Estate – Otterburn

Size (ha): 7.28

Reference: SA001




Economic development, Tourism

Catchment: RIVER REDE



Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average 1.0 - 1.5 Maximum >1.5

Defended:


Soil Type: Deep stoneless permeable coarse loamy soils over gravel in places




Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'less' vulnerable development as indicated, but test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development or FZ3 areas for 'more' vulnerable development or essential infrastructure.

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/LOW - 75% in FZ3b, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Otterburn Mill former Pumping Station

Size (ha): 0

Reference: SA088




Housing




Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average 1-1.5 Maximum 1-1.5



Site Name: Otterburn Mill former Pumping Station

Defended:


Soil Type: Deep stoneless permeable coarse loamy soils over gravel in places





Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 100% in FZ3a and max indicative depth >1.5m, but Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.10 Falstone

Falstone is located in the north of the district, downstream of Kielder Water on the northern bank of River North Tyne. Use Map 11 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The majority of Falstone is within floodzones 2 and 3, with defences that provide SOP of up to 25 years and has Falstone Burn that flows south through Falstone into the River North Tyne. Consideration of developments in this area would be subject to a detailed FRA to demonstrate consideration of all sources of flooding. The locality of this settlement to Kielder Reservoir would require consideration of the possible impacts of overtopping or breach in the FRA.

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA090: Yarrowmoor Operations Centre



A.1.9.11 Allenheads

Allenheads is situated in the far south of the district on the headwaters of the River East Allen. Floodzones 2 and 3 run partially through Allenheads built area in a north direction. Use Map 14 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. There are several drains in the areas, such as Far Sike that would need to be taken in to consideration when considering all sources of flood risk in this area.

Allenheads: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA1003: Lea Hall 0.13 RIVER WEAR NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

Allenheads: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Beaumont Mine Yard

Size (ha): 0.87

Reference: SA062




Housing, Economic development, Tourism

Catchment: RIVER WEAR



Site Name: Beaumont Mine Yard




Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'more' or 'less' vulnerable development as indicated, but the test will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development.

Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 98% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3, also Brownfield and max indicative depth <1m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc






Site Name: Chapel Cottage

Size (ha): 0.36

Reference: SA063




Housing

Catchment: RIVER WEAR




Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 61% in FZ1 but 36% in FZ3, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.12 Bardon Mill/ Redburn

Bardon Mill, Henshaw and Redburn are settlements located in parallel to the River South Tyne. Use Map 15 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. There are eight incidents of historic flooding recorded in these areas. All are beyond floodzones 2 and 3. All sources of flooding should



be assessed when considering development in this area to identify where the previous cause of flooding is or can be managed.

Bardon Mill/ Redburn: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA101: Land East of Westwood



SA102: Land South of Westwood



SA143: Land to rear of the Forge, Tow House



SA2007: Land to S of Thorngrafton



SA2008: Field near Scrogg Wood



SA2009: Field to E of War Memorial



SA2023: Land S of Scrogg Wood



Bardon Mill/ Redburn: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Ashcroft Farm

Size (ha): 1.25

Reference: SA103




Housing





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 95% in FZ1, only 3% in FZ3a, but Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc


Consider withdrawing the site boundary or water compatible development for higher risk areas.





A.1.9.13 Barrasford

Barrasford is located in the centre east of the district, north of Hexham. It lies to the east of the River North Tyne. Swin Burn flows into the River North Tyne at the southeast of the settlement. Barrasford is partially within floodzones 2 and 3 at this confluence. The limit of developable land is constrained on the south by the functional floodplain. Use Map 16 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

Barrasford: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?






SA129: Gunnerton North Farm



Barrasford: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: North of the Heugh, Barrasford

Size (ha): 0.37

Reference: SA246




Housing





Defended:


Soil Type: Deep well drained coarse loamy and sandy soils, sometimes over gravel, sometimes affected by groundwater#





Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 50% in FZ1, only 7% in FZ3a and max indicative depth <1.0m, but Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: East of Barrasford Mill

Size (ha): 0.77

Reference: SA247




Housing






Site Name: East of Barrasford Mill


Defended:


Soil Type: Deep well drained coarse loamy and sandy soils, sometimes over gravel, sometimes affected by groundwater#





Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 89% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3 and max indicative depth <1.0m but Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.14 Fourstones

Fourstones is situated in the central area of the district, north of Hexham. The River South Tyne flows in an easterly direction to the south. The floodzones 2 and 3 in this area are constrained by the river bank on the northern bank. Little of Fourstones therefore lies within either floodzone 2 and 3, there is also no historical records of flood related incidents here. Use Map 16 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

Fourstones: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?






SA075: Newbrough and Fourstones (5)






SA2012: Land to S of Kiln Cottages



A.1.9.15 Newbrough

Newbrough is situated centrally within the district to the north of Hexham. Newbrough Burn flows in a southerly direction along the west edge of Newbrough until it flows into the River South Tyne. The River South Tyne flows in an easterly direction. There are two incidents of flooding recorded that fall outside of floodzone 2 and 3. Use Map 16 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

Newbrough: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?











SA164: Land at Sidgate



SA2013: Land at Newbrough - site 1



SA2014: Land at Newbrough - site 2



SA2068: Land adjacent to Stanegate & Sidgate Lane



Newbrough: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Newbrough & Fourstones (2)

Size (ha): 2.09

Reference: SA072




Housing, Recreation





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 92% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3 and Brownfield but max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc







Size (ha): 0.71

Reference: SA073











Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 5% in FZ3a and Brownfield but only 22% in FZ1; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feesibility of mitigation measures etc


Only 5% of the site is in the high probability Flood Zone 3.




Site Name: Land at Sidgate Lane

Size (ha): 3.65

Reference: SA136




Housing





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 67% in FZ1, 19% in FZ3 and Greenfield but max indicative depth <1.0m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.16 Humshaugh/ Chollerford

Humshaugh and Chollerford are centrally located in the east of the district, north of Hexham. Humshaugh Burn flows easterly to the north of Humshaugh and into the River North Tyne. The confluence is the location of a large area of land within floodzones 2 and 3. Use Map 16 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. There is no record of historical flooding incidents outside of the floodzones 2 and 3, but there are many drains on low lying land.



Humshaugh/ Chollerford: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?









SA115: Wayne Riggs, Hamshaugh



SA2034: Land E of Grey Cottage



SA2036: Land E of Wayne Riggs Farm


NO NO 56.53 Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA2042: Land SW of St Peters Church



Humshaugh/ Chollerford: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Land at Chollerford

Size (ha): 1.61

Reference: SA144




Housing





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/LOW - 35% in FZ1 but 12% in FZ3a, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Land at New Houses

Size (ha): 0.21

Reference: SA2031



Land use suggested by proposer



Site Name: Land at New Houses

of site::





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 0% in FZ1, 41% in FZ3a and max indicative depth >1.5m, but Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc

Recommendations: None of the site is located in Flood Zone 1.




Site Name: Land S of The Meadows

Size (ha): 0.54

Reference: SA2035








Defended:






Exception Test applicable: Yes, if FZ3b areas were used for 'more' vulnerable development or essential infrastructure

Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM - 61% in FZ1 but 39% in FZ3b, Greenfield and max indicative depth <1.0 m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.17 Bearsbridge/ Whitfield

Bearsbrigde and Whitfield are in the south west of the district. Bearsbridge is on the west edge of the River West Allen where floodzones 2 and 3 partially extend into the built area. Church Burn flows north of Whitfield, where the floodzones are constrained by the floodplain. Use Map 17 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.



Site Name: Sawmill

Size (ha): 0.84

Reference: SA117




Housing, Economic development, Tourism





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/HIGH - 65% in FZ1, 27% in FZ3a but max indicative depth <1.0m and Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.18 Kielder/ Butteryhaugh

Kielder and Butteryhaugh are in the north west of the district upstream of the Kielder Reservoir. The majority of Butteryhaugh is within the floodzones 2 and 3. Use Map 24 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. There is also one incident of historic flooding recorded. Although this is as a result of fluvial flooding, when completing an assessment of flood risk all sources of flooding should still be considered.

Kielder/ Butteryhaugh: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA2011: Old Saw Mill Site

0.56 KIELDER BURN


Kielder/ Butteryhaugh: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Field next to school

Size (ha): 0.63

Reference: SA2010




Catchment: KIELDER BURN




Defended: FLOODBANK




Site Name: Field next to school

Soil Type: Slowly permeable seasonally waterlogegd fine loamy and fine loamy over clayey soils





Likelihood of passing Test: LOW - 23% in FZ1 but 62% in FZ3, Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.19 Whittonstall

Whittonstall is upland in the southeast of the district. The whole of Whittonstall is within floodzone 1. Use Map 27 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. There is no obvious flood risk in this area however all developments over 1ha will required to have a Flood Risk Assessment completed.

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA2025: Land to N of Church

0.43 RIVER DERWENT


A.1.9.20 Wark

Wark is centrally situated north of Hexham on the west bank of the River North Tyne. A small tributary, the Dean Burn, flows through Wark in an easterly direction before flowing into the River North Tyne. Use Map 29 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

Wark: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA2015: Land to N of Wark



SA2016: Land to W of Wark

0.79 DEAN BURN NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA2033: Land S of St Michaels Church

2.74 DEAN BURN NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

A.1.9.21 West Woodburn

West Woodburn is on the River Rede in the north east of the district. Floodzones 2 and 3 cover parts of the built area of West Woodburn. There is one incident of historic flooding recorded in this area, as this is within the floodzones it is likely it was from fluvial flooding however when completing



an assessment of flood risk all sources of flooding should still be considered. Use Map 30 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

West Woodburn: Flood Zone 1

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA002: Ray Estate - Stiddle Hill Farm

1.27 RIVER REDE NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA010: Ray Estate – Blake Farm

3.52 RIVER REDE NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA080: Woburn Filters


SA2053: Land at Low Leam Farm


West Woodburn: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Land S of Peel Cottage

Size (ha): 0.5

Reference: SA2072








Defended:


Soil Type: Deep stoneless fine loamy and clayey soils variably affected by groundwater

Indicative Suitability for SuDs: Medium/Low




Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH- 95% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3 and max indicative depth is negligible but Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc






A.1.9.22 Whitley Chapel

Whitley Chapel is located in the south of the district south of Hexham. Rowley Burn flows north of the settlement and Devil‟s Water to the south. Neither watercourse, nor its associated floodzones, lies within, or close to, the settlement boundaries. However there is one record of historical flooding in the centre of Whitley Chapel. The source and cause of this incident should be investigated when



considering this area for future development. Use Map 31 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA2043: Land N of Village Hall

0.5 HALGUT BURN NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

A.1.9.23 Sustainable settlements without sites:

Simonburn

Simonburn is located centrally within the district, north of Hexham. Crook Burn flows north east on the southern edge of Simonburn. Use Map 16 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. There is one historical incident of flooding recorded in the centre of Simonburn. Its source and cause should be identified when considering future development in Simonburn.

Blanchland

Blanchland is on the southern boundary of the district on the north bank of the River Derwent, which flows in an easterly direction in this location. Use Map 18 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Much of Blanchland‟s developed area is within the floodzones 2. A detailed FRA would be required for any developments considered in floodzones 2 and 3.

Byrness

Byrness is located at the north of the district, where the Spithope Burn flows south into the River Rede. Use Map 19 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Developed areas of Byrness do lie within floodzones 2 and 3. A detailed FRA would be required for any developments considered in floodzones 2 and 3.

Shotley Low Quarter

Shotley Low Quarter is in the south east of the district. Use Map 27 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. Shotleyfield Burn flows easterly through Shotley Low Quarter into the River Derwent. The floodzones are mostly restricted to the flow of the river. There are no recorded historical flooding incidents in this area.

Slaley

Slalely is located in the south east of the district. Reason Gill is located to the south and Reaston Burn east of the settlement. Neither watercourse, nor their associated floodzones, lie close to slalely. There is no record of historic flooding incidents in this area. There are no obvious sources of flooding in this area. Use Map 28 to view the area within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

A.1.9.24 Other North Tynedale areas

Birtley, Gunnerton, Ovington and Oakwood are not sustainable settlements and are located in the Northern half of the Tynedale area. Use Maps 20, 23, 25 and 29 to view these areas within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps. The north and south divide across the SFRA area is arbitrary and uses the road A69 as the division line. Much of the district of Tynedale is rural and does not easily split into smaller, localised settlements. Hence many of the sites considered in this study cannot be sub-divided into smaller geographical groups and are instead grouped together here.

Other North Tynedale areas: Flood Zone 1

The following sites are located in Flood Zone 1 and are not therefore considered to be at significant risk to fluvial or tidal flooding. Other sources of flood risk, such as overland flow routes or groundwater, will still need to be considered by potential developers. A Flood Risk Assessment, appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the development will be required for all developments greater than 1 ha in size.

Site Area (ha)

Settlement Catchment Historical Flood on Site?

FRA required?





SA2002: Land at Ovington Lodge

0.3 Ovington RIVER TYNE


SA2003: Croft Well House - site 1

0.41 Horsley RIVER TYNE


SA2004: Croft Well House - site 2



SA2024: Land N of Ovington



SA2026: Land N of Hall

0.07 Gunnerton RIVER NORTH TYNE


SA2076: Rose Hill 0.72 Great Whittington

RIVER PONT


SA2054: Howford Quarry

4.75 Acomb RIVER NORTH TYNE


SA228: The Chare 0.15 Wall RIVER NORTH TYNE


SA028: Land adjacent to North Cottage Great Whitington

0.12 Great Whittington

RIVER PONT


SA138: Land at Great Whittington

3.47 Great Whittington

RIVER PONT


SA128: The Demesne

0.55 Gunnerton RIVER NORTH TYNE


SA083: Wark Filters

0.06 Birtley RIVER NORTH TYNE


SA223: Land at Birtley, Newcastle Diocese



SA249: South of Percy View, Birtley



SA109: Kirkharle Village

0.08 Kirkwhelpington

RIVER WANSBECK


SA110: Newhouses, Kirkharle


RIVER WANSBECK


SA253: East of Eastlands, Kirkwhelpington


RIVER WANSBECK


SA003: Ray Estate: Blackhalls Farm


RIVER REDE


SA005: Ray Estate – Sweethope Farm

2.99 Bavington RIVER REDE


SA007: Ray Estate – Hawick Fell Farm



SA008: Ray Estate – Hawick Farm





SA009: Ray Estate - Ferneyrigg


RIVER REDE


SA012: Ray Estate – Ray Demesne


RIVER REDE


SA004: Ray Estate- Raechester Farm


ELSDON BURN


SA065: Site at Newton Village

0.26 Newton RIVER TYNE


SA013: North Farm Bungalow



SA189: Land at Wellburn Farm

0.76 Ovington RIVER TYNE


SA250: North of WI



SA251: South of Highcrofts



SA252: West of South East Farm



SA220: East Oakwood, Riding Estate

9.04 Oakwood RIVER TYNE


SA104: Land at Sandhoe

0.63 Sandhoe REDHOUSE BURN


SA106: Land at Oakhoe



SA107: Land at Anick



SA256: Land East of Oakwood



Other North Tynedale areas: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Ray Estate – Sweethope Loughs

Size (ha): 11.65

Reference: SA011




Tourism





Defended:


Soil Type: Slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged fine loamy and fine loamy over clayey upland with a peaty surface horizon




Exception Test applicable: Not if site were used for 'less' vulnerable development as indicated, but test



Site Name: Ray Estate – Sweethope Loughs

will be applicable if requirements change and FZ2 areas were considered for 'highly' vulnerable development or FZ3 areas for 'more' vulnerable development or essential infrastr

Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 94% in FZ1, but Greenfield and max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Whittle Dene Water Treatment Works

Size (ha): 0.19

Reference: SA082




Housing, Commercial





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/HIGH - 62% in FZ1, 28% in FZ3a but max indicative depth <1.0m and Brownfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: The Demesne

Size (ha): 2.71

Reference: SA127




Housing, Mixed use, Economic development





Defended:




Brown / Greenfield: MIXED



Site Name: The Demesne



Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/HIGH - 74% in FZ1 but 24% in FZ3 and max indicative depth >1.5m, and some Greenfield; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Warden

Size (ha): 0.82

Reference: SA131




Housing





Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/HIGH - 79% in FZ1, 0% in FZ3, but Greenfield and max indicative depth 1-1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc






Site Name: Land W of North Farm

Size (ha): 1.98

Reference: SA2032








Defended:





Site Name: Land W of North Farm





Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 91% in FZ1 and Brownfield but max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





Site Name: Land at Kirkwhelpington, Newcastle Diocese

Size (ha): 2.31

Reference: SA222




General development, Housing

Catchment: RIVER WANSBECK




Defended:







Likelihood of passing Test: MEDIUM/HIGH - 79% in FZ1, 19% in FZ3 and Greenfield but max indicative depth <1.0m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc





A.1.9.25 Other South Tynedale areas

Much of the district of Tynedale is rural and does not easily split into smaller, localised settlements. Hence many of the sites considered in this study cannot be sub divided into smaller geographical groups and are instead grouped together here. Use Maps 03 and 21 to view these areas within the Fluvial Flood Extent Maps.

Healey and Rowfoot are not sustainable settlements and are located in the Southern half of the Tynedale area. The north and south divide across the SFRA area is arbitrary and uses the road A69 as the division line.



Other South Tynedale areas: Flood Zone 1


Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



SA084: Slaggyford Water Treatment Works

0.28 Knaresdale with Kirkhaugh

RIVER SOUTH TYNE


SA034: Featherstone (1) North of Park Village

1.92 Rowfoot RIVER SOUTH TYNE


SA035: Featherstone (2) East of Park Village



SA036: Featherstone (3) West of Featherstone Rowfoot



SA232: Land to West of Rowfoot Farm



SA233: Land adjacent of Rowfoot School House



SA113: Barley Hill 0.14 Healey RIVER DERWENT


SA121: Redwell Hall Farm

1.22 Healey RIVER DERWENT


SA122: Birkenside 1.68 Healey RIVER DERWENT


SA123: Kiln Pit Hill 0.32 Healey RIVER DERWENT


SA124: South Drive Plantation, Ministeracres

1.23 Healey RIVER DERWENT


SA091: Hedley on the Hill Water Tower

0.08 Hedley RIVER DERWENT


SA126: Low Fotherley

0.67 Healey STOCKSFIELD BURN


SA092: Cockershield Water Treatent Works

Not measured

Hexhamshire HALGUT BURN


SA187: Burnt House, Healey

0.7 Healey RIVER TYNE NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA188: Sawmill, Healey

0.29 Healey RIVER TYNE NO NO Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA086: Ridley 0.58 Bardon Mill RIVER ALLEN NO NO Proposed as option



Site Area (ha)


FRA required?



Common Reservoir for consideration as LDF site allocation

SA142: Shankhead Farm

3.58 Bardon Mill RIVER ALLEN NO YES Proposed as option for consideration as LDF site allocation




Other South Tynedale areas: Flood Zones 2 & 3

Site Name: Newlands, Consett

Size (ha): 20.93

Reference: SA069




Housing

Catchment: RIVER DERWENT



Indicative depth of Inundation (m): Average <1.0 Maximum > 1.5

Defended:


Soil Type: Well drained coarse loamy and soil sometimes over gravel/Slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged fine loamy soils




Exception Test applicable: Yes, if FZ3 areas were used for 'more' vulnerable development, as indicated, or essential infrastructure

Likelihood of passing Test: HIGH - 99% in FZ1, only 1% in FZ3, and Brownfield but max indicative depth >1.5m; need to consider sustainable development objectives, feasibility of mitigation measures etc







Appendix B: - Methodology and Data Sources



B.1 METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

B.1.1 Methodology of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

The methodology for the assessments comprises the following:

A sequential assessment of the flood risk posed to suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations in the towns and villages in the area. This includes categorisation of each site with respect to the degree of flood risk posed by development.

An assessment of each site located in Flood Zones 2 and 3 as to how likely it is that those sites will pass the Exception Test.

B.1.2 Catchment Processes

With reference to catchment processes, it is important to consider how the different areas in the SFRA interact with each other. As the following section will demonstrate, flood processes and flood risk issues across the Tynedale area are inextricably linked by the main rivers and their tributaries. However, it is also vital to consider the interactions with other districts beyond the District boundaries. The importance of examining river systems at a catchment level has long been recognised, and is an approach advocated by the Environment Agency. The policies within this SFRA also recognise and support flood risk management with the catchment.

Map 01, shows the Tynedale District and Northumberland National Park area and its surrounding districts including the network of watercourses that flows through them.

Many of the watercourses within Tynedale originate with the District. Although it is likely that small land use changes will have only a localised impact, larger changes have the potential to impact significantly on the flood risk downstream. It is therefore essential that development decisions made within the District are sensitive to the impacts outside it.

B.1.2.1 The River Tyne Catchment

The Tyne CFMP area covers 2933km2 and includes the Tynedale District area along with the city of

Newcastle upon Tyne, the District of Gateshead and parts of North Tyneside and South Tyneside. The River Tyne has two main tributaries, the Rivers North and River South Tyne and smaller tributary rivers comprising the Derwent, Rede, Allen, Team, Ouseburn and Don. Key waterbodies are the Kielder Reservoir on the River North Tyne and to a lesser extent the Derwent Reservoir on the River Derwent.

The Rivers South and North Tyne and Derwent pose flood risk to the Tynedale District area. The Kielder and Derwent Reservoirs are also both located in the area.

The headwaters of the River North Tyne were impounded in 1982 to form the Kielder Reservoir, which is the largest man-made reservoir in Europe. Also, a large part of the River North Tyne catchment is given over to one of England‟s largest commercial coniferous forestry operations, Kielder Forest.

The River North Tyne is the main Tyne‟s northern tributary, rising in the Scottish borders and joining the River South Tyne just upstream of Hexham. It makes up almost 60% of the catchment area at the confluence. The Rede is a tributary of the River North Tyne and differs both topographically and, as it transpires, hydrologically, from its larger neighbour. The headwaters of the Rede contain the Catcleugh Reservoir, but this controls a relatively small proportion of the catchment. The topography is lower and less steep than the River North Tyne and it has a well developed and active flood plain in its middle reaches.

The River South Tyne is the more „natural‟ of the two main tributaries, with no reservoirs and no commercial forestry. Instead it is steep (steeper than the North Tyne) with high moorland headwaters above Alston. Soils are either thin or waterlogged and there is little to buffer the response of the river to rainfall.

The Tyne catchment is underlain by (impervious) carboniferous limestone in the west and coal measures in the east. Between the confluence of the North and South Tyne rivers and the tidal limit at Wylam, the river remains wide with an active gravel bed. This bed is still eroding after a period of



intense gravel extraction in the 1950s and early 1960s, and in many places the active flood plain is now inaccessible to the river, being several metres higher.

In addition to the two main tributaries there are many secondary rivers or „burns‟ that are unlikely to generate a flood in the main River Tyne but can themselves cause flooding of the communities they flow through. These rivers, and therefore the buildings in their path, are susceptible to flash flooding of a particularly destructive type. It is destructive because of the typically steep channel with high erosive power and because there is little or no warning of an impending flood due to the speed of the response. Problems on these rivers do not lend themselves to strategic solutions, being essentially local in character.

Land Use

The distribution of land cover has been used to describe existing land use within the Tyne catchment. This shows that the north-western part of the catchment is dominated by Kielder Forest, whilst much of the north-east and south-west contains managed grasslands, and in the central area a mixture of farming and small isolated urban areas. The eastern part of the catchment is dominated by the urban conurbation of Newcastle and Gateshead, which occupies about 10% of the total Tyne catchment.

At 620 km2, Kielder is England's largest and most productive forest and is located mainly within the

area draining to the North Tyne, occupying over 25 % of the total River North Tyne catchment. Smaller areas of woodland are located in the south-east of the catchment, in an area associated with the Great North Forest, mainly within the River Team sub-catchment and the Derwent valley.

Groundwater

The majority of the Tyne catchment is underlain by minor aquifers. There are few major aquifers and these tend to be small in extent or isolated in location. Aquifers throughout the catchment are generally classified as having a low vulnerability to surface contamination. This is due to the low permeability of overlying drift deposits and soils. Areas of higher vulnerability are localised and tend to follow river channels due to the increased permeability of overlying alluvium.

Whilst minor aquifers seldom produce large quantities of water they can be important for local water supply. The underlying coal measures in the eastern portion of the catchment are largely composed of shales, sandstones, fireclays and coal. Only the sandstones are capable of storing and transmitting appreciable volumes of water. However, the groundwater potential is limited as its quality has been affected by coal mining.

A major aquifer is located in the north-west of the catchment within the fell sandstone outcrop of the River North Tyne valley. This is little utilised due to the isolated nature of its location and its limited extent.

B.1.3 Developing the SFRA

The approach to the SFRA is as follows:

B.1.3.1 Data Collection

A critical phase in the project delivery is the collection and review of existing information. These data comprise known or perceived flood risk issues within the district, development pressures and constraints, and current policy governing development within flood risk affected areas. The majority of this data has been recorded and included in the GIS data layers used to undertake this assessment. A summary of data sources used in this assessment is provided below:

Details of any other areas subject to development.

Local Policy Documents.

Environment Agency historical records of flooding including cause and extent where available.

Flood Incident Records from the Northumberland Fire & Rescue Service.

Critical Ordinary Watercourse (COW) designations and investigations.

Existing Section 105 investigations for watercourses in the District.

Current flood risk management strategies including details of flood defence assets.

Northumberland National Park Northern Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.



B.1.3.2 Assessment of Flood Risk

The primary objective is to assess and categorise, in accordance with Table D.1 of PPS 25 (Flood Risk Zones – see also Table C-1 Appendix C.1), flood risk within the developing areas. In general, the following considerations have been addressed as part of the flood risk assessment process:

Definition of areas subject to development and regeneration pressures.

Identification of known or perceived flood risk areas, including the nature of the flooding problem (e.g. river flooding, local under-capacity drainage, culvert blockage) providing the initial „filter‟ for key flood risk issue areas within the SFRA area.

Review of the current Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps, to provide the broad (first pass) definition of high risk Flood Zone 3.

Review of more detailed flood risk information, from model results where available, to refine the delineation of actual risk in flood zones.

Identification of washland and critical floodplain areas as high risk Flood Zone 3b.

Identification of expanded „Flood Zone 3‟ following the possible effects of climate change.

Identification of formal and informal flood defences that reduce flooding to developing and regeneration areas.

Identification of developing areas contributing to 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).

B.1.3.3 Categorisation of Sites in Accordance with PPS 25

This involves identifying those areas in the District that fall within Flood Risk Zones 1, 2 and 3. The Tynedale District Council have identified a large number of sites within the Site Allocation Options DPD as well as a number of potential key development areas and preliminary sites put forward to be considered in the LDF. The individual sites are overlain onto the defined flood risk zones and each site has subsequently been categorised in accordance with the PPS 25 Sequential Test. No sites have been identified within the section of the Northumberland National Park encompasses in this study.

A review of suggested options for consideration as LDF site allocations has been undertaken to categorise sites with respect to the degree of flood risk posed to them. The filtering process used to categorise these sites is summarised below. It should be noted that undeveloped areas within Zone 3a have been identified early on during the screening process, as they are seen as potential 3b areas that should be tested against functionality criteria, and therefore safeguarded against significant development.

Sites within Flood Zone 1: Sites located outside the medium and high Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3, respectively. PPS 25 considers areas within low Flood Risk Zone 1 to be at little or no risk of fluvial flooding. Flood risk zones are defined by the Environment Agency‟s Flood Zone Maps.

Sites within Flood Zone 2: Sites located outside the high flood risk zone 3 but wholly or partially located within the medium Flood Risk Zone 2.

Sites within Flood Zone 3a: Previously developed or undeveloped areas wholly or partially located within high Flood Risk Zone 3a.

Sites within Flood Zone 3b: Sites located wholly or partially within the functional floodplain. These are areas where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood.

B.1.3.4 Definition of Zone 3b - Functional Floodplain

Development not acceptable (highest risk

and least range of compatible

land use)

Preferred location for

development (least risk

and greater range of

compatible land use)



PPS 25 defines this as land, “…where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood…” and, “…which would flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20 (5%) or greater in any year…”44

The following criteria have been developed and applied in this study, based on the guidance provided in PPS 25:

A functional floodplain needs to comprise an unobstructed area of land where flood water is not prevented by flood defences or by permanent buildings from inundation during times of flood.

A functional floodplain must be active, meaning land which provides flood conveyance or flood storage, either through natural processes, or by design or designation.

A functional floodplain designation is also dependent of the regularity of flooding and must be an area of land where water regularly flows in times of flood. It is understood that the regularity of flooding for a zone 3b area arises from a flood with a 5% chance of occurrence in any one year or greater.

Further to this, the broad scale mapping produced as part of the North East CFMP process has been used to estimate the extent of the 1 in 20 year event which, for the purposes of a strategic assessment, can be assumed to be the functional flood plain. The flood outline is shown on Map 32.

The outline varies relatively little from the National Flood Zone 3 outline. This is further evidence that the topography of the area is such that it will contain flood risk and variation in event size will lead to variation in inundation depths rather than extent. This estimate also implies that the National Flood Zone 3 can be regarded as a representation of the Functional Floodplain.

Functional floodplain does not have a simple definition, and performance of the river floodplain in a local context will guide where floodplain has a functionality that should be protected and enhanced.

The Planning Authorities will encourage development that enhances opportunities to restore the natural floodplain.

B.1.3.5 Climate Change

There is a significant body of scientific evidence that the global climate is changing, and that the rate of change will accelerate. This will lead to increasing storm intensities and rising sea levels which will in turn have an impact on flood risk. PPS 25 states that each new development “…should remain safe throughout the lifetime of the plan or proposed development and land use”. Hence to ensure that this requirement is met, and that the principle of sustainable development is upheld, the possible effects of climate change on flood risk in the study area should be considered.

The delineation of Flood Zones 2 and 3, coinciding with the 0.1% and 1% events respectively, has been used as an indication of how flood risk may alter laterally as a result of climate change. A review of the Flood Zone maps indicates that in general, there are few areas where the difference between Zone 2 and 3 is significant enough to alter the delineation of high risk zones for application of the Sequential Test.

Where existing river models were available, further interrogation of modelling results has been used to determine more accurately the potential impact of climate change and land use change on design levels. Map 32 shows the estimated flood outline of the 100 year event plus 20% increase in flows to allow for the effects of climate change, produced as part of the broad scale modelling carried out for the North East CFMP process. Again, this outline varies little from any of the others considered and further confirms the hypothesis that climate change will not lead to a significantly increased flood extent and will not, therefore, alter the delineation of high risk zones. However those areas that have already been identified as at risk are likely to suffer more frequent flooding and an increase in threshold depths.

The site specific FRAs should include a detailed assessment of the potential effects of climate change and how the increased flood risk will be managed safely. However, as an indication, the „Indicative Depths of Inundation‟ provided for each site in this study are based on modelled estimates with allowance for climate change over the next 50 years. This is to give the Planning Authorities an additional level of resolution of flood information and therefore further inform decision making within

44

Communities and Local Government. 2006. Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. December 2006. pg 7. http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/955/PlanningPolicyStatement25DevelopmentandFloodRisk_id1504955.pdf



the context of the Sequential Test. The information is not intended to inform any detailed building design e.g. with regard to floor levels etc. This is within the remit of the FRA.

Climate change needs to be explicitly assessed in detailed FRAs.

For the purpose of this SFRA there is a presumption by the Planning Authorities that proposals for new development will be accompanied by a surface water management plan that will demonstrate how flood risk associated with new development will be managed without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The general principle adopted by the Planning Authorities is that all surface water should be attenuated on site for the duration of the flood event before being release in a controlled manner back into the drainage system or receiving watercourse.

B.1.3.6 Surface Water Modelling

There are a range of interactive mapping (GIS), topographic analysis and overland routing techniques that can be used to assess and map flood risk from other sources. These techniques provide an indication of overland flow routes and areas prone to surface water flooding that are not identified by Flood Zone mapping. Initial screening may focus on assessment of storm events that exceed the available capacity of surface water systems and flash floods.

At the most basic level, GIS can be used to display historical flooding outlines, or known flood flow pathways that can be useful for surface water management planning. However, historical records are not always complete or stored consistently.

At the next level, topographic analysis can be undertaken that combines different features of the topography that would suggest an increased risk of flooding. This includes very flat areas, natural drainage lines and depressions.

This process can be further developed to take account of rainfall and surface water within an area. It will provide Local Authorities with an indication of areas that are susceptible to overland flows. There are potentially two key advantages of this technique:

The interaction of flow along natural surface drainage lines and sheet runoff are modelled in combination.

Knowledge of the sewer system is not required.

In its simplest terms, the surface water modelling simulates a significant rain fall event over a 3 dimensional representation of a catchment or specific urban areas. This allows areas that are vulnerable to surface water flooding to be identified. This technique is most appropriate when assessing risks during high volume intense storms, which are normally associated with summer months and flash flooding events.

Rainfall mapping provides an understanding of how and where surface water flooding is likely to occur. The mapping also identifies areas, outside of the Flood Zones, that are at risk of flooding.

LiDAR data is the ideal choice for the 3 dimensional representation, normally with some edits to ensure that all potential flow paths are clear of unrealistic obstacles that tend to limit the extent of flooding. Model results generated from this screening process provide information on the peak depth of flooding.

The 2D modelling package JFlow was used to investigate the impact of surface water flooding and to look at vulnerable areas in greater detail. The modelling assessment focused on Hexham, which was identified in the data collection stage, and 2 additional urbanised areas of Haltwhistle and Prudhoe.

The modelling assessment is based on topographical data and estimated rainfall for severe storms coinciding with a 0.1% AEP event. A representation of a storm scenario was created for each of the 3 areas. The simulations identified any area where surface water is likely to collect or „pond‟ to significant depths and the overland flow routes that might be established.

Maps numbered 33, 34 and 35 provide plots of the maximum recorded depths above a threshold of 15cm. It can be seen that water collects along watercourses and roads, as might be expected, but it also shows some other areas on land where water has ponded, indicating their vulnerability to surface water flooding.

These plots could be used in a similar way to the National Flood Zone Maps to identify additional areas that are susceptible to flooding.

B.1.3.7 Planning Review Sites within Flood Risk Zones 1 and 2



Recommendations for the future management of development and redevelopment sites in low to medium Flood Risk Zones are provided to meet the requirements of national planning guidance and regional and local flood risk policy.

B.1.3.8 Planning Review of Sites within High Risk Zone 3

Consideration has been given to the actual risk posed to individual sites in high Flood Risk Zone 3 and recommendations for development allocations have been made. Development constraints within these areas are dependent on the strategic importance and requirement for development (within a planning context).

Recommendations for the future management of development within the high Flood Risk Zone have been provided on a site-by-site basis to meet the requirements of PPS 25, as well as regional and local flood risk policy.

B.1.3.9 Establishment of Guidance for LPA and Developers at Planning Application Stage

Concise and pragmatic guidance has been developed to assist the Planning Authorities and developers to ensure that the outcomes and recommendations of the SFRA are followed through to the planning application and implementation stage. (Refer to Appendix C for further details)

It is imperative to ensure that the requirements placed upon developers at planning application are robust and fit for purpose. Similarly, the ownership, roles and responsibilities of the LPA and Environment Agency as appraisal bodies must also be clearly understood to ensure that the intent of the SFRA and planning process are not lost.

B.1.3.10 Detail Assessment Requirements and Exception Test

In order to assist the Planning Authorities in determining whether housing and employment requirements can be met, without affecting existing areas of medium to high flood risk, detailed assessment has been carried out at a number of sites. At these sites the potential impact of generic mitigation measures has been considered.

All the sites which are located in Flood Zones 2 and 3 are assessed as to the likelihood of them passing the Exception Test and general recommendations given (there can be more than one possibility for each site). Those sites located in Flood Zones 2 and 3 are then subsequently examined in more detail.

B.1.4 Flood Zone Maps

To support the planning process and the implementation of PPS 25, the Environment Agency is producing a range of flood mapping products. These include Flood Zone Maps and the Historical Flood Map. Functional floodplain does not have a simple a definition, and performance of the river floodplain in a local context will guide where floodplain has a functionality that should be protected and enhanced.

The Flood Zone Maps are the first of these to be delivered. These maps predict the high (1% fluvial and 0.5% tidal) and medium (0.1% fluvial and tidal) flood risk zones across all of England and Wales. They have been prepared using a consistent methodology based on the national digital terrain model (NextMap), derived river flows (Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH)) and two dimensional flood routing. The theoretically derived flood zone extents have been adjusted in some locations where the results are inconsistent with historical flooding extents, more detailed flood mapping studies or where there are known errors in the digital terrain model.

The Flood Zone Maps were first released to LPAs and others in June 2004. The maps have been revised since that time and are updated every quarter to include new, improved data from EA surveying and modelling programmes. Version 3.4 of the Flood Zone Maps has been used in this SFRA.

Whilst the Flood Zone Maps are an improvement on past broad scale modelling approaches (such as the IH130 methodology), their limitations must be recognised. The methodology does not allow for the impact of features such as washlands or historical river diversions, and consequently there can be inconsistencies between the theoretical flood extents and historical flood extents. However, the boundary between Zones 3a and b are unlikely to be affected. Whilst the topographic data used in the modelling is fit for purpose, there are uncertainties associated with the data which affect the accuracy of the flood extents.



The Flood Zone Maps do not take account of flood defences and, therefore, represent a theoretical extent of flooding. The actual extent of flooding is mitigated, to some extent, by flood defences. In this sense the Flood Zone Maps provide a conservative assessment of the extent of flooding and are consistent with PPS 25, which categorises flood risk ignoring the effects of defences.

Allocations and other developing areas that are situated wholly or partially within the Flood Zone Maps must be critically reviewed to assess the degree of flood risk posed directly to or by the proposed development.

B.1.5 Flood Defences

PPS 25 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 location and condition of all flood defences is provided by the Environment Agency via the National Fluvial and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD). A copy of registered assets in the area has also been obtained for this study. They are represented in each of the detailed plans for each of the study areas within Tynedale.

The condition of the 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 on the basis of 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 in table B-1 below.

Table B - 1 NFCDD Condition Ratings

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.

As part of the SFRA these visual condition grades have been taken as an indication of the risk of defence failure as this is an accepted EA process undertaken in the National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) flood risk maps. In detailed Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs) the condition of the defences will need to be explored more thoroughly, especially where the defences are informal and contain a wide variation of condition grades. In this SFRA the term poor condition has been used. This reflects defences of condition grade below 2, or where specific concern has been raised by the Environment Agency.

B.1.6 Historical Flooding

Historical flooding events and issues have been identified and assessed utilising the following information sources:

Details of historical flooding records in Tynedale have been provided by District Council and Northumberland National Park Authority representatives.

The Environment Agency Historical Flood Map.

Flood Incident Records provided by the Northumberland Fire & Rescue Service.

B.1.7 Identification of Localised Drainage Issues

In addition to fluvial flood risk, alternative sources of flooding including groundwater, overland flow and drainage systems also need to be considered when planning development. Although explicit consideration of these sources of flooding is not a requirement for flood zone allocation, local drainage issues have the potential to cause substantial damage and distress. When considering development proposals, known drainage and surface water problems need to be taken into account.



Information provided by the Northumberland Fire & Rescue Service and Northumbrian Water has been used to try and identify areas where drainage might be an issue.

Where a localised drainage issue has been identified, further development upstream of this location has a potential to exacerbate the existing problem by increasing discharge and altering the flow regime of the watercourse. For this reason, all proposed developments need to consider mitigation measures to ensure flood risk is not increased either upstream or downstream of the proposed development. In this instance mitigation may take the form of sustainable drainage techniques or surface water attenuation. The consideration of soil type will provide a positive contribution in the consideration of drainage arrangements strategically and will give an indication of their suitability for soak away solutions (SuDS). It should be stressed that whilst the permeability of the soil is an important consideration for infiltration techniques, some SuDS techniques can be used on impermeable soils and could help aid attenuation by reducing conveyance time. Soil classifications should, therefore, be considered when carrying out a more site specific investigation.

Detailed site specific Flood Risk Assessments (for sites carried forward to development) will need to be undertaken to investigate the flood regime in detail.

The SFRA identifies areas where strict control of surface water is critical, if flood risk is not to be made worse by development.

B.1.8 Ground Water

Groundwater flooding is defined as the type of flooding that can be caused by the emergence of water originating from underground. The water may emerge from either point or diffuse locations. The occurrence of groundwater flooding is very local.

Unlike flooding from rivers and the sea, groundwater flooding does not pose a significant risk to life, but is more associated with significant damage to property, with flooding persisting over a number of weeks for some types of groundwater flooding. Groundwater flooding is a significant but localised issue that has attracted an increasing amount of public concern in recent years.

Groundwater flooding arises from:

Natural exceptional rises in groundwater level, reactivating springs and short lived watercourses (often referred to as „clearwater‟ flooding).

Rising groundwater (rebound) following reductions in historic abstraction.

Minewater recovering to natural levels following cessation of pumping.

Local shallow drainage/flooding problems unrelated to deep groundwater responses.

Key issues are:

Groundwater flooding is sporadic in time and location, but when it does occur it usually has a longer duration than surface water flooding and interferes with property and infrastructure (such as roads).

In most cases groundwater flooding cannot be managed or solutions engineered.

There are many other localised and site-specific reasons for water to emerge at the surface or to appear in basements, for example, leaking water mains and sewers, blocked drains, and impedance of natural drainage routes by urban development or deepening of cellars to below the natural water table.

The North East of England has a long history of mineral extraction and coal mining. One problem that can happen, when mines are abandoned and mine water pumping ceases, is that groundwater levels 'rebound' sometimes causing local flooding. More often than flooding, the issues with mine water are its poor quality and the impact on the receiving watercourse. Upstream of the tidal limit of the Tyne, most mines have been closed for many years and ground water levels long ago reached their maximum. In the eastern part of the Tyne catchment (in the tidal reach), mines like Westerhope in South Shields are more recently closed, however, there is not likely to be any increase in flood risk associated with these closures.

The geology of Tynedale suggests that the risk from groundwater flooding is low. However each site specific FRA should address the issue and assess the localised risk.



B.1.9 Limitations of Background Information

Data and models are key to the understanding of the scale of the flood risk. However the data used in the SFRA is limited in many aspects and it is important that these limitations are considered.

The limitations of Flood Zone Maps have been covered in Sections B.1.4 and B.1.5.

Where there is no reference to localised flooding issues at a site, this does not necessarily mean that there are none.

Detailed site specific Flood Risk Assessments (for sites carried forward to development) will need to be undertaken to investigate the flood regime in detail.



Appendix C: - Flood Risk Zones / Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification



C.1 FLOOD RISK ZONES

Table C - 1 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 PPS 25) 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 PPS 25 and Table A-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 PPS 25) 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 PPS 25 and Table A-2 of this report) are appropriate in this zone.



The highly vulnerable uses listed in Table D.2 (of PPS 25 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 PPS 25 and Table A-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 PPS 25) 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;

ii. relocate existing development to land in lower flood zones; and

iii. 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: The 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 25 (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 (of PPS 25 and Table A-2 of this report) that has to be there should be permitted in this zone. It should be designed and constructed to

remain operational 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.

Note 1: These Flood Zones refer to the probability of river and sea flooding ignoring the presence of defences

C.2 FLOOD RISK VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION

Table C - 2 Flood Risk Vulnerability 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 and Fire stations and 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 consent1

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 waste2

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.

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. 1DETA Cicular 04/00 – para. 18: Planning controls for hazardous substances.

www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144377 2See Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 10 for definition.

www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1500757

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144377



C.3 DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOOD ZONES

Table C - 3 Development allowed and not permitted in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3

Flood Zones Appropriate development

Development not permitted

Development allowed only if

Exception Test is passed

Site specific Flood Risk

Assessment

Flood Zone 1: Low Probability

All development:

Water-compatible development

Less vulnerable

More vulnerable

Highly vulnerable


N/A N/A FRA required for development proposals on sites of 1 ha or more1

Flood Zone 2: Medium Probability

Water-compatible

Less vulnerable

More vulnerable


N/A Highly vulnerable

FRA required for all development

Flood Zone 3a: High Probability

Water-compatible

Less vulnerable

Highly vulnerable

More vulnerable

Essential infrastructure2


Flood Zone 3b: The Functional Floodplain

Water-compatible Less vulnerable

More vulnerable

Highly vulnerable

Essential infrastructure2


1This need only be brief unless there are concerns about: a) the site‟s vulnerability to flooding from other sources as well as

from river and sea flooding and b) the development‟s potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water runoff – or any other local considerations which require particular attention. 2In this case, essential infrastructure should be designed and constructed to: a) remain operational in times of flood b)

result in n net loss of floodplain storage c) not impede water flows and d) not increase flood risk elsewhere.



Appendix D: - Roles and responsibilities of the Developer and LPA



D.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEVELOPER AND LPA

D.1.1 Extract from the Companion to the Practice Guide PPS 25

INDIVIDUAL PLANNING APPLICATIONS The role of the developer

1.40 Paragraphs 22-23 of PPS 25 clarify the responsibility of developers to carefully consider the flood risk issues at a site as early as possible. Flood risk is one of many constraints that should be considered prior to taking forward a development and it has significant implications for the value of, and potential for, a development site. Whilst the Environment Agency Flood Map and Standing Advice provide a useful indication of the likely flood risk issues at a site, and the SFRA may provide further more detailed information, developers are advised to make independent checks prior to purchasing sites. Guidance on assessing flood risk at development sites is provided in Chapter 2 of this Guide. 1.41 A developer is not required to apply the Sequential Test if a proposed development is located on a site which has been allocated for that type of development in a LDD that has been sequentially tested and supported by a SFRA. However, the developer should still apply the sequential approach to any flood risk within the site itself when determining the location of appropriate land uses. Guidance on use of the sequential approach within a development site is provided in Chapter 3. 1.42 In any areas where flood risk has been identified as an issue, developers should liaise with the LPA to agree on who should be consulted. The scope of any site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be agreed with the LPA, if necessary in consultation with the Environment Agency. It is strongly recommended that key issues are resolved prior to the submission of any planning application. 1.43 Once a planning application, together with an appropriate FRA, is submitted by the developer, it will be assessed to ensure that the applicant has considered flood risk from all sources and demonstrated how flood risk will be managed taking climate change into account. 1.44 The process from pre-purchase to submission of a completed planning application form with accompanying FRA is illustrated in Figure 1.4.



Figure 1.4 Individual planning applications – guidance for developers

Notes 1 A SFRA can be defined as current if it has been prepared in accordance with PPS 25. 2 If the site has been allocated in this way then subsequent steps in the process are likely to be significantly more straightforward. 3 If a site has not been allocated in the LDD because it was considered that the flood risk is unacceptable, it is unlikely that a proposed development at the site will be accepted by the LPA. 4 See pages 30-31 for key consultees to the planning process with regard to flood risk. 5 Guidance on undertaking a FRA can be found in Chapter 2. 6 Including surface water management.

Identify vulnerability of proposed development land use type (Table D2 PPS 25)

Is a current Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) available1?

Has the site been allocated for the

proposed land-use type in the Local

Development Document (LDD) using the

Sequential/Exception tests2?

Does the proposed development have the potential to pass the

Sequential Test and/or Exception Tests2?

Consult Local Planning Authority (LPA). Does the LPA confirm that the proposed development may

be acceptable?

Consider alternative development / site

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Confirm with the LPA whether a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required and if consultation is necessary with flood risk consultees4

Yes

Yes

Where applicable, undertake pre-application consultation with the flood risk consultees. Are there any known flooding-related site constraints which make the development proposed unviable?

Agree the scope of an appropriate FRA with the LPA based on the pre-application discussions. Undertake FRA5. Is it possible to design a new development which is safe and which does not increase flood

risk elsewhere6?

Do the proposals fulfil the requirements of the Sequential Test? Has reasoned justification been provided to the LPA wherever they need to apply the exception test. Have all contentious issues been

discussed and agreed with the LPA and flood risk consultees?

Submit application to LPA using standard Planning Application Form and accompanying FRA.

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No



1.45 Where either: (a) the proposed site is not consistent in scale, development type and location with a site allocation that has already been sequentially tested as part of a LDD, or (b) the Sequential and Exception Tests have not been applied to the LDD and the site is within an area at risk of flooding, reasoned justification should be provided by the developer for the proposed development that is compliant with the requirements of the Sequential and Exception Tests. It is recommended that any contentious issues are discussed with the LPA and the Environment Agency prior to the application being submitted, to minimise the risk of the Environment Agency raising an objection. The role of the local planning authority (LPA) 1.46 The LPA is the principal decision-maker regarding applications for new development. LPAs should seek to engage in pre-application discussions with any developer expressing an interest in submitting a planning application for a site that is in an area at risk of flooding or which has potential to increase flood risk elsewhere. Specifically the LPA should:

Refer the developer to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and any policies within the LDD of relevance to flood risk at the site, including policies or guidance on the application of sustainable drainage measures.

Inform the developer as to whether the Sequential Test and/or Exception Test has already been applied as part of the site allocation process for the LDD.

Where the site has not been allocated in accordance with the requirements of the Sequential and Exception Tests, clarify the specific supporting information required to allow the LPA to apply the Sequential or Exception Test as part of the individual planning application process.

Advise the developer on the need for a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and consultation with Environment Agency and/or other flood risk consultees.

Set out and agree the scope for the FRA using the Environment Agency Standing Advice, or in direct consultation with the Environment Agency and any relevant flood risk consultees, as appropriate.

Encourage pre-application discussions with the identified flood risk consultees to ensure flood risk issues are resolved prior to submission of the planning application.

1.47 On receipt of the application, the LPA will consult the Environment Agency in accordance with Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 („the GDPO‟). The GDPO was amended on 1 October 2006 to make the Environment Agency a statutory consultee for specified categories of development where flood risk is an issue as follows:

Development within 20m of the bank top of a Main River.

Any culverting operation or development which controls the flow of any river or stream.

Development other than minor development in Flood Zones 2 & 3.

Development in Flood Zone 1 where there are critical drainage problems.

Any development exceeding one hectare in extent. The Environment Agency is required to respond to consultations on preplanning enquiries within 21 days, unless otherwise formally agreed in writing. 1.48 The checklist used by the Environment Agency to provide a framework for transparent demonstration of the application of the Sequential Test to planning applications is provided in Table 1.3.



Table 1.3 Environment Agency checklist to provide a framework for transparent demonstration of the application of the Sequential Test to planning applications

Question Answer Yes/No Sequential Test – passed or failed?

1. Is this application consistent in scale, development type and location, with a site allocation that has already been sequentially tested and included in the Local Development Document (LDD)?

If yes, state which allocation and the location in the development plan. If the answer is „No‟ go to Question 2.

If the answer is Yes the Sequential Test has been passed – FINISH HERE

2. Does the application site fall within an area identified for „windfall‟ development that has been agreed as part of the LDD in association with a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)?

If yes, state the location in the LDD. If the answer is „No‟ or there are no such areas identified in the LDD, go to Question 3.

If the answer is Yes the Sequential Test has been passed - FINISH HERE

3. Does the LDD or background documents contain reasonably available, alternative site allocations that are situated in a lower flood risk zone?

If yes, state which allocation(s) and the location in the development plan. If the answer is „No‟ go to Question 4

If the answer is Yes the Sequential Test has been failed - FINISH HERE

4. Does the development plan or background documents contain reasonably available, alternative site allocations that are within the same Flood Zone and subject to a lower probability of flooding from all sources as detailed by the SFRA?

If yes, state which allocation(s) and the location in the development plan.

If the answer is No to Questions 3 and 4 the Sequential Test has been passed. If the answer is Yes to Question 4, the Sequential Test has been failed - FINISH HERE

Note: Refer to Environment Agency standing advice at environment-agency.gov.uk/planning for the full version of this table 1.49 The Environment Agency Advice and the evidence supplied by the developer should be used as the basis for taking flood risk issues into account in the LPA‟s planning decision. In coming to its decision, the LPA should demonstrate how the requirements of the Sequential Test and, where necessary, the Exception Test have been met. 1.50 The Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction, 2007 requires an LPA to notify the Secretary of State of any application for major development in a flood risk area (as defined in the Direction), where it is minded to grant permission against advice from the Environment Agency (on flood risk grounds). The Government considers that in such cases, all parties (the LPA, Environment Agency and applicant) should, as soon as practicable, discuss and agree the course of action required to enable the Environment Agency to withdraw its objection. The discussions should be commenced as soon as possible after the objection is made known by the Environment Agency. There should be effective and ongoing liaison between the parties so that each is aware, at all stages in the process, of the position of the others regarding the application. 1.51 The discussions are likely to be helped if the Environment Agency sets out its reason(s) for objecting to the application, and the LPA/applicant set out their reason(s) for supporting it. If, following such discussions, the Environment Agency concludes that it is unable to withdraw its objection, it should advise the LPA of this as soon as possible.



1.52 Where a LPA remains minded to grant permission in such a situation, the Direction requires them to notify the Secretary of State of the application. This provides the Secretary of State with an opportunity to check the application‟s general compliance with the policies in PPS 25 and to consider whether to call it in for determination. The Secretary of State will wish to be assured that all reasonable steps have been taken by the LPA, the Environment Agency and the applicant to examine ways in which the application might be amended or further information provided to support it, which would have allowed the Environment Agency to withdraw its objection. In line with current policy, the Secretary of State will continue to be selective about calling in planning applications. 1.53 For the purposes of the Direction, development is defined as major if:

For residential development, the number of dwellings to be provided is 10 or more, or the site area is 0.5 hectares or more.

For non–residential development, the new floorspace to be provided is 1,000 square metres or more, or the site area is 1 hectare or more.

A flood risk area is defined as:

Land in an area within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

Land in an area within Flood Zone 1 which has critical drainage problems and which has been notified to the local planning authority by the Environment Agency.



MAPS

Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park ...€¦ · FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 i...

Documents

Transcript of Tynedale District Council & Northumberland National Park ...€¦ · FINAL_090416.doc: 22/04/2009 i...