DOCSLIB.ORG

Flood Risk for Employment Sites the Information Below Provides a Factual Account of the Flood Risk at 7 Employment Sites (Site 441, 1031, 160, 001, 462, 013 & 149)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flood Risk for Employment Sites the Information Below Provides a Factual Account of the Flood Risk at 7 Employment Sites (Site 441, 1031, 160, 001, 462, 013 & 149) Flood risk for employment sites The information below provides a factual account of the flood risk at 7 employment sites (Site 441, 1031, 160, 001, 462, 013 & 149). Legend © Crown Copyright and database rights 2020. Ordnance Survey 100024198 Site 441 - Land at Site 1031 - West Moor Park, Site 160 - Thorne South Urban Site 001 - Junction 6 M18, Site 462 – Adwick Site 013 - West Moor Park Site 149 – Nutwell South, Armthorpe Carcroft Common, East (EA EMD Area) Extension, Bradholme Farm, Thorne North Lane, Carcroft North (EA EMD Area) Carcroft Thorne (EA Yorkshire Area) (EA Yorkshire Area) (EA EMD Area) (EA Yorkshire (EA EMD Area) Area) Strategic Level Assessment Flood Zone 100% flood zone 3 Approximately 40% flood Approximately 100% flood zone 3 Approximately 92% 100% flood zone 3 Approximately 71% flood zone 3 zone 3 93% flood zone 3 flood zone 3 14% flood zone 2 8% flood zone 2 7% flood zone 2 8% flood zone 2 15% flood zone 1 52% flood zone 1 (Approximately 5-10% of the site is also shown to be within Flood Zone 3b the Functional Floodplain of the South Soak Drain) In an Area Benefitting from Yes No No Yes No No No Defences Flood Events The EA holds no records of previous flood events at this site. March 1947 February 2020 (local June 2007 March 1947 February 2020 (local February 2020 (local drainage/surface Autumn 2000 drainage/surface water Autumn 2000 drainage/surface water water flooding) June 2007 flooding) June 2007 flooding) November 2019 November 2019 (local (local drainage/surface drainage/surface water flooding) water flooding) Covered by a Flood Warning Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Area Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment Residual Breach Risk These maps are based on computer modelling of simulated breaches at intervals at certain points on Main Rivers. Each breach has been modelled individually. Multiple breaches, other combinations of breaches, different sized flood flows may all give different results. These maps show the level of flood hazard to people (called a hazard rating) if our flood defences are breached at certain locations, for a range of scenarios. The hazard rating depends on the depth and velocity of floodwater across the floodplain. These maps only consider the consequences of a breach, it does not make any assumption about the likelihood of a breach occurring. Our defences generally provide a good standard of protection but a risk of breaching remains. Please note: Although modelled residual risk mapping is not available for all the sites the SFRA does define the residual risk areas and the required mitigation as detailed below. This information can be found on the SFRA Interactive Map Site 441 - Land at Site 1031 - West Moor Park, Site 160 - Thorne South Urban Site 001 - Junction 6 M18, Site 462 – Adwick Site 013 - West Moor Park Site 149 – Nutwell South, Armthorpe Carcroft Common, East (EA EMD Area) Extension, Bradholme Farm, Thorne North Lane, Carcroft North (EA EMD Area) Carcroft Thorne (EA Yorkshire Area) (EA Yorkshire Area) (EA EMD Area) (EA Yorkshire (EA EMD Area) Area) Residual Breach Risk - Upper Humber Upper Humber Breach Upper Humber Breach 1% (1 in Upper Humber Breach 1% Upper Humber Breach Upper Humber Breach Model Upper Humber Breach Model Not Depth on site (m) Breach Model Not Model Not available – does 100) Breach (1 in 100) Breach Model Not available – Not available – does not cover available – does not cover this area available – does not cover this area does not cover this this area not cover this area Between 0m – 2m Between 1m – 2m+ area Residual Flood Residual Flood Risk Zones Residual Flood Risk Zones Residual Flood Risk Zones Residual Flood Risk Residual Flood Risk Zones Residual Flood Risk Zones defined Risk Zones defined defined within the SFRA defined within the SFRA defined within the SFRA Zones defined within defined within the SFRA within the SFRA within the SFRA the SFRA The site is at residual risk The site is at residual risk from The site is at residual risk The site is at residual risk from The site is at residual risk from the Isle The site is within from the Isle of Axholme. the Isle of Axholme. This is from the Isle of Axholme. The site is within 1947 the Isle of Axholme. This is of Axholme. This is defined in the 1947 and 2007 This is defined in the Level 1 defined in the Level 1 SFRA This is defined in the Level 1 and 2007 historical defined in the Level 1 SFRA Level 1 SFRA section 6.4.1 Residual historical flood SFRA section 6.4.1 Residual section 6.4.1 Residual Flood SFRA section 6.4.1 Residual flood area: section 6.4.1 Residual Flood Flood Risk Zone and Planning Advice. area: Flood Risk Zone and Risk Zone and Planning Advice. Flood Risk Zone and Risk Zone and Planning Planning Advice. Planning Advice. The SFRA states Advice. It states: The SFRA states It states: developments should developments It states: It states: have floor levels set It states: Isle of Axholme (IOA) – the SFRA for should have floor Isle of Axholme (IOA) – the higher than the North & North East Lincolnshire 2011 levels set higher Isle of Axholme (IOA) – the SFRA for North & North East Isle of Axholme (IOA) – the recorded flood level, Isle of Axholme (IOA) – the advises that the critical flood level is 4.1 than the recorded SFRA for North & North East Lincolnshire 2011 advises that SFRA for North & North East and no lower than 5 m SFRA for North & North East m AOD. The EA has agreed with flood level, and no Lincolnshire 2011 advises the critical flood level is 4.1 m Lincolnshire 2011 advises AOD. This restriction Lincolnshire 2011 advises that Doncaster LPA on the following lower than 5 m that the critical flood level is AOD. The EA has agreed with that the critical flood level is has been derived from the critical flood level is 4.1 m restrictions: AOD. This 4.1 m AOD. The EA has Doncaster LPA on the following 4.1 m AOD. The EA has early planning advice AOD. The EA has agreed with o A potential flood level of up to 4.1 m restriction has agreed with Doncaster LPA restrictions17: agreed with Doncaster LPA from predecessor Doncaster LPA on the AOD should be used for planning been derived from on the following restrictions: o A potential floor level of up to on the following restrictions: organisations of the following restrictions: purposes with finished floor levels 300 early planning o A potential flood level of 4.1 m AOD should be used for o A potential flood level of EA and remains valid o A potential flood level of up mm above this level (i.e. at 4.4 m advice from up to 4.1 m AOD should be planning purposes with finished up to 4.1 m AOD should be following flooding in to 4.1 m AOD should be used AOD). the 2007 flood event predecessor used for planning purposes floor levels 300 mm above this used for planning purposes for planning purposes with o Due to residual flood risk, finished organisations of level (i.e. at 4.4 m AOD). with finished floor levels 300 in areas such as Toll with finished floor levels 300 finished floor levels 300 mm floor levels should aim to be 4.4 m AOD the EA and mm above this level (i.e. at Bar, although surface mm above this level (i.e. at o Due to residual flood risk, above this level (i.e. at 4.4 m as a starting point. However, it is remains valid 4.4 m AOD). water flooding was 4.4 m AOD). finished floor levels should aim AOD). acknowledged that viability issues and following flooding also a significant issue o Due to residual flood risk, to be 4.4 m AOD as a starting o Due to residual flood risk, o Due to residual flood risk, existing AOD may result in lower in the 2007 flood in the 2007 finished floor levels should point. However, it is finished floor levels should finished floor levels should aim finished floor levels which will need to event in areas occurrence. aim to be 4.4 m AOD as a acknowledged that viability aim to be 4.4 m AOD as a to be 4.4 m AOD as a starting be confirmed through a site-specific such as Toll Bar, starting point. However, it is issues and existing AOD may starting point. However, it is point. However, it is flood risk assessment and subject to although surface acknowledged that viability result in lower finished floor acknowledged that viability acknowledged that viability agreement with DMBC and the EA water flooding was levels which will need to be issues and existing AOD also a significant issues and existing AOD confirmed through a site- may result in lower finished issues and existing AOD may issue in the 2007 may result in lower finished specific flood risk assessment floor levels which will need result in lower finished floor occurrence. floor levels which will need to and subject to agreement with to be confirmed through a levels which will need to be be confirmed through a site- DMBC and the EA site-specific flood risk confirmed through a site- specific flood risk assessment and subject to specific flood risk assessment assessment and subject to agreement with DMBC and and subject to agreement with agreement with DMBC and the EA DMBC and the EA the EA The site also has some areas within 1947 and 2007 historical flood area: The SFRA states developments should have floor levels set higher than the recorded flood level, and no lower than 5 m AOD.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advisory Visit Rivers Meden and Maun, Thoresby Estate
    Advisory Visit Rivers Meden and Maun, Thoresby Estate, Nottinghamshire January 2018 1.0 Introduction This report is the output of a site visit undertaken by Tim Jacklin of the Wild Trout Trust to the Rivers Meden and Maun on the Thoresby Estate, Nottinghamshire on 4th January, 2018. Comments in this report are based on observations on the day of the site visit and discussions with Andrew Dobson (River Warden, Thoresby Estate) and Ryan Taylor (Environment Agency). Normal convention is applied throughout the report with respect to bank identification, i.e. the banks are designated left hand bank (LHB) or right hand bank (RHB) whilst looking downstream. 2.0 Catchment / Fishery Overview The River Meden rises to the north of Mansfield and flows east-north- eastwards through a largely rural catchment. The River Maun rises in the conurbation of Mansfield and flows north-eastwards past Ollerton to join the River Meden at Conjure Alders (SK6589872033). The rivers then separate again and re-join approximately 6km downstream near West Drayton (SK7027875118) to form the River Idle (a Trent tributary with its confluence at West Stockwith SK7896894718). Both rivers flow over a geology comprising sandstone with underlying coal measures and there is a history of extensive deep coal mining in the area. Table 1 gives a summary of data collected by the Environment Agency to assess the quality of the rivers for the Water Framework Directive. Both rivers appear to have a similar ecological quality and closer inspection of the categories which make up this assessment reveal that fish and invertebrates were both ‘high’ and ‘good’ for the Meden and Maun respectively in 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 - 2021
    Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 - 2021 Final June 2016 Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Review Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Rev Date Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by 1 August 2013 Outline Local Flood Risk Hannah Andy Wallace, Gary Wood, Group Management Strategy for O’Callaghan, Flood Risk Manager Highways Consultation Flood Risk Manager Planning, Access Management and Officer (Project Commissioning Manager) (Project Executive) 2 December Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling 2014 Strategy – Draft for Client Water and Principal Associate Comment Flood Risk Consultant Consultant (URS) (URS) (URS) 3 June 2015 Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling Strategy – Second Draft for Water and Principal Associate Client Comment Flood Risk Consultant Consultant AECOM AECOM AECOM (formerly URS) (Formerly URS) (Formerly URS) 4 July 2015 Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling Strategy – Final Draft for Water and Principal Associate Consultation Flood Risk Consultant Consultant AECOM AECOM AECOM 5 October Local Flood Risk Management Derek Hair Andy Wallace Transport and 2015 Strategy – Final Draft for Highways Principal Project Flood Risk Consultation Committee Engineer Manager AECOM 6 December Local Flood Risk Management Derek Hair Clive Wood Transport and 2015 Strategy – Final Draft for Highways Principal Project Flood Risk Consultation Committee Engineer Manager 7 June 2016 Local Flood Risk Management Derek
    [Show full text]
  • 39. Humberhead Levels Area Profile: Supporting Documents
    National Character 39. Humberhead Levels Area profile: Supporting documents www.naturalengland.org.uk 1 National Character 39. Humberhead Levels Area profile: Supporting documents Introduction National Character Areas map As part of Natural England’s responsibilities as set out in the Natural Environment White Paper,1 Biodiversity 20202 and the European Landscape Convention,3 we are revising profiles for England’s 159 National Character Areas North (NCAs). These are areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which East follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment. Yorkshire & The North Humber NCA profiles are guidance documents which can help communities to inform West their decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain will support the planning of conservation initiatives at a East landscape scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage Midlands broader partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will West also help to inform choices about how land is managed and can change. Midlands East of Each profile includes a description of the natural and cultural features England that shape our landscapes, how the landscape has changed over time, the current key drivers for ongoing change, and a broad analysis of each London area’s characteristics and ecosystem services. Statements of Environmental South East Opportunity (SEOs) are suggested, which draw on this integrated information. South West The SEOs offer guidance on the critical issues, which could help to achieve sustainable growth and a more secure environmental future.
    [Show full text]
  • River Torne Catchment 2019/20
    River Torne Catchment 2019/20 Jamie McEwan 2 | P a g e Executive summary A series of 'Aspirational projects' have been developed by the Torne Catchment partnership over a number of meetings. This document addresses the need to be able to summarise potential projects by their multiple benefits, costs and relevance to available funding. True to the Catchment based approach it allows us to work effectively together combining resources to progress projects from an idea and enable the effective delivery of WFD and multiple benefits for the catchment. Developed by the partnership this document provides a list of projects summarising the relative contributions each project makes towards WFD funding themes and the partnership aims. It also provides a more detailed overview for each project outlining the status, lead partner, management and location of each project alongside its relevance to the funding themes and estimated cost. Within project descriptions further detail can be found for project justification, next steps for progress, and context. Appended is a blank project template detailing how partners can go about putting forward a new idea to be considered as a project for the catchment. Through partnership review and reporting this becomes a live document and process to help support a shared vision, clarity of purpose and the ability of the partnership to act fast on relevant opportunities. Ultimately this document will be an effective way of allowing all members of the partnership to contribute toward the development of the catchment. A project idea from its beginning can be brought forward to the partnership and its progress tracked to completion eventually forming a portfolio for the Torne Catchment partnership as well as an active and aspirational document.
    [Show full text]
  • The Protection of Public Rights of Navigation
    The Protection of Public Rights of Navigation River Access For All Ltd January 2015 Contents Introduction Page 2 The Statutes Page 4 The Commissions Page 7 Rivers Mentioned in the Commissions Page 2 7 Other Rivers mentioned in other Sources Page 2 8 Acts of Parliament & other statutory instruments Stating or Implying Pre-existing Navigation Rights Page 30 Tolls as an indication of rights Page 3 3 Observations Page 3 5 Conclusion Page 36 Important Note This document contains many links to source material and is intended to be used in .pdf format. If you have a version that does not benefit from these links, a .pdf version can be obtained at http://www.riveraccessforall.co.uk/docs/totally_compelling_evidence.pdf 1 Introduction Opponents of recognition of public rights of navigation in all rivers claim that there were historic limitations on navigation. In particular, they claim that navigation was limited to the tidal sections of rivers, with the exception of a limited and defined listing of the “Great Rivers” (e.g. Thames, Severn and Trent). We suggest, however, “Great Rivers” does not have a precise meaning and effectively means any river capable of navigation; we also believe that there is no historical evidence supporting a distinction between tidal and non-tidal waters. The evidence below shows that, while some of the statutes and Commissions do refer to “Great Rivers”, they related to a diverse number of rivers of varying scale (e.g. the commission of 1415, June 10 ) specifically protected navigation on the River Brant in Lincolnshire under statutes that referred to “Great Rivers”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Doncaster Green Infrastructure Strategy 2014- 2028
    The Doncaster Green Infrastructure Strategy 2014- 2028 Creating a Greener, Healthier & more Attractive Borough Adoption Version April 2014 Doncaster Council Service Improvement & Policy (Regeneration & Environment) 0 1 the potential of the Limestone Valley, which runs through the west of the borough. Did you know that Doncaster has 65 different woodlands which cover an area in excess of 521 hectares? That’s about the equivalent to over 1,000 football pitches. There are 88 different formal open spaces across the borough, which include football, rugby and cricket pitches, greens, courts and athletics tracks. Doncaster is also home to 12 golf courses. The Trans-Pennine Trail passes through Doncaster and is integral to the extensive footpath and cycle network that link the borough’s communities with the countryside, jobs and recreation opportunities. There are so Foreword from the many more features across Doncaster and these are covered within this Strategy document. Portfolio Holder… Despite this enviable position that communities in Doncaster enjoy, there is always so much more that can be done to make the borough’s GI even greater. The Strategy sets out a framework As Portfolio Holder for Environment & Waste at for ensuring maximum investment and funding Doncaster Council, I am delighted to introduce is being channelled, both by the Council and the the Doncaster Green Infrastructure Strategy vast array of important partners who invest so 2014-2028: Creating a Greener, Healthier & much time and resources, often voluntarily, into more Attractive Borough. making our GI as good as it can be. As the largest metropolitan Borough in the This Strategy will help deliver a better country, covering over 220 square miles, connected network of multi-purpose spaces and Doncaster has an extensive green infrastructure provide the opportunity for the coordination (GI) network which includes numerous assets and delivery of environmental improvements and large areas that are rural in character.
    [Show full text]
  • River Basin Management Plan Humber River Basin District Annex C
    River Basin Management Plan Humber River Basin District Annex C: Actions to deliver objectives Contents C.1 Introduction 2 C. 2 Actions we can all take 8 C.3 All sectors 10 C.4 Agriculture and rural land management 16 C.5 Angling and conservation 39 C.6 Central government 50 C.7 Environment Agency 60 C.8 Industry, manufacturing and other business 83 C.9 Local and regional government 83 C.10 Mining and quarrying 98 C.11 Navigation 103 C.12 Urban and transport 110 C.13 Water industry 116 C.1 Introduction This annex sets out tables of the actions (the programmes of measures) that are proposed for each sector. Actions are the on the ground activities that will implemented to manage the pressures on the water environment and achieve the objectives of this plan. Further information relating to these actions and how they have been developed is given in: • Annex B Objectives for waters in the Humber River Basin District This gives information on the current status and environmental objectives that have been set and when it is planned to achieve these • Annex D Protected area objectives (including programmes for Natura 2000) This gives details of the location of protected areas, the monitoring networks for these, the environmental objectives and additional information on programmes of work for Natura 2000 sites. • Annex E Actions appraisal This gives information about how we have set the water body objectives for this plan and how we have selected the actions • Annex F Mechanisms for action This sets out the mechanisms - that is, the policy, legal, financial and voluntary arrangements - that allow actions to be put in place The actions are set out in tables for each sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route Scheme (FARRRS) Phase Two
    Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route Scheme (FARRRS) Phase Two Environmental Statement Volume II: Historic Environment Technical Appendix F Document Reference: MM - 337339 - ENV - 023 May 2016 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route Scheme (FARRRS) Phase Two 337339 EMP 1 A http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objId=1564796763&objAction=brow se&viewType=1 February 2016 Environmental Statement Volume II: Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route (FARRRS) Phase EnvironmentalHistoric Environment Statement Volume Technical II - Historic Appendix Environment F Technical Ap Document Reference: MM - 337339 - ENV - 023 May 2016 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Civic Office Waterdale, Doncaster, South Yorkshire DN1 3BU Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 111 St Mary's Road, Sheffield S2 4AP, United Kingdom T +44 (0)114 2761242 W www.mottmac.com Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route Scheme (FARRRS) Phase Two Volume II - Historic Environment Technical Appendix F Issue and Revision Record Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description J. Williams A April 2016 P. Adams M. Staniland First draft for Client comment G. Middleton J. Williams B May 2016 P. Adams M. Staniland Final for issue G. Middleton Information class: StandardStandard This document is issued for the party which commissioned it We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party, or being used project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission used for any other purpose. which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.
    [Show full text]
  • 39. Humberhead Levels Area Profile: Supporting Documents
    National Character 39. Humberhead Levels Area profile: Supporting documents www.naturalengland.org.uk 1 National Character 39. Humberhead Levels Area profile: Supporting documents Introduction National Character Areas map As part of Natural England’s responsibilities as set out in the Natural Environment White Paper,1 Biodiversity 20202 and the European Landscape Convention,3 we are revising profiles for England’s 159 National Character Areas North (NCAs). These are areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which East follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment. Yorkshire & The North Humber NCA profiles are guidance documents which can help communities to inform West their decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain will support the planning of conservation initiatives at a East landscape scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage Midlands broader partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will West also help to inform choices about how land is managed and can change. Midlands East of Each profile includes a description of the natural and cultural features England that shape our landscapes, how the landscape has changed over time, the current key drivers for ongoing change, and a broad analysis of each London area’s characteristics and ecosystem services. Statements of Environmental South East Opportunity (SEOs) are suggested, which draw on this integrated information. South West The SEOs offer guidance on the critical issues, which could help to achieve sustainable growth and a more secure environmental future.
    [Show full text]
  • Retford – November 2019
    APPENDIX D SECTION 19 REPORT – RETFORD – NOVEMBER 2019 Introduction Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 states: 1. On becoming aware of a flood in its area, a lead local flood authority must, to the extent that it considers it necessary or appropriate, investigate: (a) Which Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have relevant flood risk management functions. (b) Whether each of those Risk Management Authorities has exercised, or is proposing to exercise, those functions in response to the flood. 2. Where an authority carries out an investigation under subsection (1) of Section 19 it must: (a) Publish the results of its investigation. (b) Notify any relevant Risk Management Authorities. 3. The objective of this report is to investigate which Risk Management Authorities had relevant flood risk management functions during the flooding in November 2019 and whether the relevant Risk Management Authorities have exercised, or propose to exercise, their risk management functions (as per section 19(1) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010). 4. The Risk Management Authorities with a responsibility for this flooding incident are Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Nottinghamshire County Council as Highways Authority (Via East Midlands Ltd.), the Environment Agency (EA), Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board (TVIDB) and Bassetlaw District Council (BDC). 5. It should be noted that this duty to investigate does not guarantee that flooding problems will be resolved and cannot force others into action. Background 6. On the 7th November 2019, parts of the East Midlands experienced a month’s worth of rainfall in just 24 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Catchment Management Plan the Environment Agency's Vision for the Rivers Idle and Torne Catchment Management Plan
    catchment management plan The Environment Agency's Vision for the Rivers Idle and Torne Catchment Management Plan he catchment of the Rivers Idle and Torne The key objectives of the plan are therefore to: T covers an area of 1 307 km2 within north Nottinghamshire and south Humberside and has • Establish a balance between the demands of a resident population of about 625,000 people. irrigation and abstraction and the needs of the environment. Man has impacted on the catchment since early times and the area has a rich industrial and • Ensure that the quality of minewater archaeological heritage. The heavily urbanised discharged to the rivers is of a and industrial headwaters contrast sharply with standard appropriate to the needs of the very flat, open and rural lower reaches nearer downstream users. to the confluences with the River Trent. Man's influence is also apparent here though where • Initiate and promote proposals for the drains have been cut and rivers re-routed and improvement of habitats for fisheries straightened to produce highly productive and conservation. agricultural areas. • Ensure that the standard of flood protection The catchment is predominantly rural with the is appropriate to the needs of the adjacent exception of the headwaters, as described above. land use, consistent with the vision. The River Idle and its tributaries flow through the heavily industrialised towns of Mansfield and The achievement of this vision is dependant on Worksop, then through the rolling forested areas the committed and enthusiastic cooperation of of Sherwood Forest and the Dukeries. The River others. Some objectives are common goals, while Torne rises on the edge of Doncaster and others may require a degree of compromise flows through the flat areas of low land, between differing demands on the resources of characterised by the Isle of Axholme, Thorne the catchment.
    [Show full text]
  • Doncaster Local Plan: Archaeological Scoping Assessment
    Doncaster Local Plan: Archaeological Scoping Assessment Allocation Reference: 950 Area (Ha): 0.139 Allocation Type: Housing NGR (centre): SK 65386 93458 Site Name: Station Hotel, 93 Station Road, Bawtry Settlement: Bawtry Allocation Recommendations Archaeological significance of site Unknown Historic landscape significance Negligible Suitability of site for allocation Uncertain archaeological constraint Summary Within site Within buffer zone Scheduled Monument - - Listed Building - - SMR record/event - 1 record/1 event Cropmark/Lidar evidence No No Cartographic features of interest Yes Yes Estimated sub-surface disturbance Partial n/a www.archeritage.co.uk Page 1 of 4 Doncaster Local Plan: Archaeological Scoping Assessment Allocation Reference: 950 Area (Ha): 0.139 Allocation Type: Housing NGR (centre): SK 65386 93458 Site Name: Station Hotel, 93 Station Road, Bawtry Settlement: Bawtry Site assessment Known assets/character: The SMR does not record any monuments, findspots or events within the site. There is one monument and one event within the eastern edge of the buffer, both referring to the recovery of a substantial quantity of Roman pottery and coins during a watching brief on wetland improvements to the west of the River idle. An associated column base indicated that a structure had been located at the site. The types of pottery represented suggested the structure had a religious function, possibly a shrine or temple, but subsequent geophysical survey did not identify any anomalies. There are no Scheduled Monuments, listed buildings or registered parks within the site or buffer. The National Mapping Programme aerial mapping project did not record any features within the site or buffer, though cropmarks of probable Iron Age to Roman field systems were recorded just to the north.
    [Show full text]