North West river basin district Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 to 2021 PART B – Sub Areas in the North West river basin district

March 2016

1 of 139

Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon house, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: [email protected] or our National Customer Contact Centre: www.gov.uk/environment-agency T: 03708 506506

Email: [email protected]. © Environment Agency 2016 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency.

2 of 139 Contents

Glossary and abbreviations ...... 5 The layout of this document ...... 8 1 Sub-areas in the North West River Basin District ...... 10 Introduction ...... 10 Management Catchments ...... 11 Flood Risk Areas ...... 11 2 Conclusions and measures to manage risk for the Flood Risk Areas in the North West River Basin District ...... 12 2.1 The Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area ...... 13 Introduction to the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area ...... 13 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 15 Conclusions for the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area ...... 16 Measures across the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area ...... 18 2.1 Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area ...... 21 Introduction to the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area ...... 21 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 24 Conclusions for the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area ...... 25 Measures across the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area ...... 26 3 Conclusions and measures to manage risk in North West River Basin District catchments ...... 28 3.2 The Derwent Catchment ...... 31 Introduction to the catchment ...... 31 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 34 Conclusions for the Derwent Catchment ...... 37 Measures across the Derwent Catchment ...... 38 3.2 The South West Lakes Catchment ...... 40 Introduction to the catchment ...... 40 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 43 Conclusions for the South West Lakes Catchment...... 46 Measures across the South West Lakes Catchment ...... 47 3.3 The Kent and Leven Catchment ...... 49 Introduction to the catchment ...... 49 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 52 Conclusions for the Kent and Leven Catchment ...... 55 Measures across the Kent and Leven Catchment ...... 57 3.4 The Lune Catchment ...... 59 Introduction to the catchment ...... 59 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 61 Conclusions for the Lune Catchment ...... 64

3 of 139 Measures across the Lune Catchment ...... 65 3.5 The Wyre Catchment ...... 67 Introduction to the catchment ...... 67 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 71 Conclusions for the Wyre Catchment ...... 74 Measures across the Wyre Catchment ...... 76 3.6 The Ribble Catchment ...... 78 Introduction to the catchment ...... 78 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 80 Conclusions for the Ribble Catchment ...... 83 Measures across the Ribble Catchment ...... 84 3.7 The Douglas Catchment ...... 86 Introduction to the catchment ...... 86 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 89 Conclusions for the Douglas Catchment ...... 92 Measures across the Douglas Catchment ...... 93 3.8 The Alt Crossens Catchment ...... 95 Introduction to the catchment ...... 95 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 98 Conclusions for the Alt Crossens Catchment ...... 101 Measures across the Alt Crossens Catchment ...... 102 3.9 The Irwell Catchment ...... 104 Introduction to the catchment ...... 104 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 107 Conclusions for the Irwell Catchment ...... 109 Measures across the Irwell Catchment ...... 111 3.10 The Upper Mersey Catchment ...... 113 Introduction to the catchment ...... 113 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 116 Conclusions for the Upper Mersey Catchment ...... 118 Measures across the Upper Mersey Catchment ...... 120 3.11 The Lower Mersey Catchment ...... 121 Introduction to the catchment ...... 121 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 123 Conclusions for the Lower Mersey Catchment ...... 126 Measures across the Lower Mersey Catchment ...... 127 3.12 The Weaver and Gowy Catchment ...... 129 Introduction to the catchment ...... 129 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 133 Conclusions for the Weaver and Gowy Catchment ...... 136 Measures across the Weaver and Gowy Catchment ...... 137

4 of 139 Glossary and abbreviations

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty BAP Biodiversity Action Plan Catchment The watershed of a surface water river system CaBA Catchment based approach: an approach to environmental planning that focuses on local engagement and partnerships CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan Coastal Groups Voluntary coastal defence groups made up of maritime district authorities and other bodies with coastal defence responsibilities. Cross Border Set up under The Flood Risk (Cross Border Areas) Regulations 2012 Advisory Group (SI No. 1102). A statutory group made up of representatives from (CBAG) SEPA, Environment Agency and local authorities within the cross border areas. Cross Border Those areas designated as ‘cross border’ under The Flood Risk (Cross Areas Border Areas) Regulations 2012 (SI No. 1102). CWS County Wildlife Site DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EA Environment Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPR Environmental Protection Regulations EU European Union FCERM Flood and coastal erosion risk management Floods Directive The European Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) on the assessment and management of flood risks. Flood Risk Area Areas where the risk of flooding from local flood risks is significant as (FRA) designated under the Flood Risk Regulations. FRM Flood Risk Management FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan – plan produced to deliver the requirements of the Flood Risk Regulations. Government The term government is used within this report to refer to Defra (the Department for Environment, Flood and Rural Affairs) and Welsh Government. Groundwater Occurs when water levels in the ground rise above the natural surface. flooding Low-lying areas underlain by permeable strata are particularly susceptible. Ha Hectares HLS Higher Level (Environmental) Stewardship HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment: an assessment undertaken in relation to a site designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives Km Kilometres

5 of 139 LDF Local Development Framework LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority Local FRM Local flood risk management strategy produced by LLFAs under the Strategy Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Main river A watercourse shown as such on the main river map, and for which the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales has responsibilities and powers MSFW Making Space for Water National FCERM National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy: these are Strategy strategies prepared under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, by the Environment Agency for England and by Welsh Government for Wales. NNR National Nature Reserve NRW Natural Resources Wales. The NRW took over the functions of the Environment Agency in Wales on 1st April 2013. Ordinary All watercourses that are not designated Main River, and which are the watercourses responsibility of Local Authorities or, where they exist, Internal Drainage (OW) Boards. PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment – these were required to be published by December 2011 and were the first stage in delivering the Regulations. PU Policy Unit Ramsar Wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention Reservoir A natural or artificial lake where water is collected and stored until needed. Reservoirs can be used for irrigation, recreation, providing water supply for municipal needs, hydroelectric power or controlling water flow. Risk Organisations that have a key role in flood and coastal erosion risk management management as defined by the Act. These are the Environment authorities Agency, Natural Resources Wales, lead local flood authorities, district (RMAs) councils where there is no unitary authority, internal drainage boards, water companies, and highways authorities. RFCCs Regional Flood and Coastal Committees River Basin These are the reporting units to the European Commission for the District (RBD) Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. RBMP River Basin Management Plan – plan required by the European Water Framework Directive. Riparian owner Owner of land adjoining, above or with a watercourse running through it. River flooding Occurs when water levels in a channel overwhelms the capacity of the channel. SAC Special Area of Conservation SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument SAMP System Asset Management Plan

6 of 139 SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SMP Shoreline Management Plan SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems Surface water Flooding from rainwater (including snow and other precipitation) which flooding has not entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer. SWMP Surface Water Management Plan UKCIP United Kingdom Climate Impact Projections

7 of 139 The layout of this document

Flood Risk Management Plans have been divided into four sections to help readers identify and access information relevant to them. This is Part B. We have divided the plan into four parts: Audience Name Summary Document For those who a high level overview of the plan

Part A: Background and river basin For those who need some legislative background district wide information and river basin district wide, high level information

Part B: Catchment Summaries For those who want the detail of the sub-areas and flooding statistics. This section includes the catchments based on Water Framework Directive (WFD) management catchments, Flood Risk Areas (identified through the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment) and other strategic areas across the RBD.

Part C: Appendices For those who want to see the detailed program of work for individual communities

Part B introduces each of the sub-areas in turn. This section outlines the catchments based on Water Framework Directive (WFD) management catchments, which make up the RBD, then the Flood Risk Areas (identified through the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment) and other strategic areas across the RBD. The other parts of the flood risk management plan are located on gov.uk (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/north- west-river-basin-district-flood-risk- management-plan)

8 of 139

During December 2015, Storms Desmond, Eva and Frank brought record breaking levels of rainfall and significant flooding to some parts of the country. On 5 and 6 December the highest ever river flows were registered in several large catchments including the Eden, Lune and Tyne. On 25 and 26 December further record river levels were registered for many large rivers draining the Pennines. The Met Office confirmed that December 2015 was the wettest on record in parts of the UK, including Cumbria which experienced more than two and a half times expected monthly rainfall.

Across the country over 19,000 homes were flooded, with thousands more affected by loss of power supply and travel disruption. Existing flood defences played an essential part in protecting thousands of homes during December with 12,500 benefitting during Storm Desmond and 10,900 during Storm Eva. Support to affected communities, business and the agricultural sector is in place, along with a programme of inspections and repairs to damaged defences.

It is essential to ensure that we have the very best possible plans in place for flood management across the whole country. Following the December 2015 floods, Defra announced a National Flood Resilience Review, to assess how the country can be better protected from future flooding and increasingly extreme weather events. The review is looking at climate modelling, infrastructure, resilience and future investment strategy. Government is also working to strengthen or establish partnerships in the areas most flood affected to encourage a more integrated approach to managing risk across the whole catchment. These Partnerships are considering improvements to flood defences, upstream options to help slow the flow and surface water runoff, and how planning and design of urban areas can help reduce flood risk. They are also aiming to build stronger links between local residents, community groups and flood management planning and decision making. The resulting actions from the Local Flood Partnerships in Cumbria and Yorkshire will complement the measures in the relevant FRMPs and the learning from this approach will be shared across the country. In England, the Government is investing £2.3bn on 1,500 flood defence schemes between 2015-2021. Investment in flood risk management infrastructure not only reduces the risks of flooding but also supports growth by helping to create new jobs, bringing confidence to areas previously affected by floods and creating and restoring habitats. The following flood risk areas and catchments were impacted by the December 2015 storms and experienced significant flooding to homes, businesses and infrastructure:  Derwent  Kent and Leven  South West lakes  Lune  Wyre  Ribble  Douglas  Alt Crossens  Irwell  Upper Mersey  Lower Mersey  Weaver Gowy

9 of 139 1 Sub-areas in the North West River Basin District

Introduction There are a number of sub-areas within the North West RBD, as shown in Figure 1 and outlined below. These sub-areas and issues in them are described in Catchment Summaries in Sections 2 and 3. These are: Catchments (which are set out according to WFD Management Catchments) Flood Risk Areas (identified in the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment): areas that require flood risk management plans for local sources of flooding.

Figure 1 North West RBD showing Catchments, Flood Risk Areas.

10 of 139 Flood Risk Areas These are areas identified through Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments as areas of potentially significant local flood risk (for instance surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses), for which FRMPs need to be prepared. Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area - The Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area covers part of the Upper Mersey and Irwell catchments. Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area – The Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk areas falls within the Lower Mersey catchment. Liverpool City Council are contributing to the joint FRMP, Sefton Council have opted to complete a separate FRMP. Both FRAs are shown on Figure 1 and throughout the Flood Risk Areas sections; however it should be noted that the boundaries will not necessarily contain every area of high risk associated with the FRA. Some areas at risk related to each FRA may be geographically isolated from the core of the FRA and centres of population for which the FRAs have been derived. Management Catchments These are areas where we focus engagement to enable a catchment based approach to water management. There are 12 catchments in the North West RBD, as listed below: The following catchments are included in this plan: Derwent South West Lakes Kent and Leven Lune Wyre Ribble Douglas Alt and Crossens Irwell Upper Mersey Lower Mersey Weaver Gowy

11 of 139 2 Conclusions and measures to manage risk for the Flood Risk Areas in the North West River Basin District

The following sections consider the measures for each of the following Flood Risk Areas in the North West River Basin District:

The Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area The Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area Objectives for the North West river basin district can be found in Part A, section 8 of the FRMP.

12 of 139 2.1 The Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area

Introduction to the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area Using the Flood Map for Surface Water and the Environment Agency's flood risk thresholds a Flood Risk Area (FRA) was identified in Greater Manchester. The Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area was identified with 119,941 people at risk. The Greater Manchester FRA covers 9 of the Greater Manchester Local Authorities Bolton, Oldham, Salford, Trafford, Manchester, Stockport, Tameside, Rochdale and Bury. Greater Manchester is a significant population centre with a population of 2.5 million people. The Irwell and Upper Mersey catchments dominate the FRA with Glaze Brook, the River Bollin, Sinderland Brook, the River Goyt, and the River Etherow amongst the other key water courses in the FRA. The hydrology of the Greater Manchester FRA is influenced by a mixture of natural features (topography, geology and water courses) and artificial influences (canals, reservoir and development). The hydrology of the sub-region is affected not only by natural features such as topography, watercourses and geology, but also by artificial influences such as canals, reservoirs and the built environment. As a result the hydrology in the FRA is complex with multiple sources of flood risk. Reservoirs in the Tame, Goyt and Etherow sub-catchments have an influence on flows within the catchment, particularly in the upper reaches. The Manchester Ship Canal receives waters from both the Upper Mersey and River Irwell catchments and provides an important drainage and flood alleviation function.

Figure 2 Overview map of the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area.

13 of 139 Historically, the Upper Mersey has experienced sudden periods of flooding. Salford is shown to have significant historical flooding, in particular fluvial and sewer flooding. Many of the recorded incidents are as a result of flooding from the River Irwell, Manchester and Trafford have also experienced significant flood effects. Land Use and Management Greater Manchester experienced rapid expansion in the 19th century during the Industrial Revolution due to the growth in the wool and cotton industry. Since the 1920s much of this industry has been in decline leading to areas of social deprivation within the FRA, making these communities more susceptible to the impacts of flooding. Areas of higher ground are characterised by grassland and moors whereas in the lowlands urban areas dominate. Prominent urban areas include Manchester, Salford and Oldham, Bolton, Bury and Stockport. Irwell and its tributaries provide green links, which are important for recreation, including fishing, sailing and canoeing. Other water based activities such as windsurfing, waterskiing, leisure sailing, dinghy racing, and scuba diving are carried out on canals and reservoirs in the catchment. Many watercourses in the Greater Manchester FRA were culverted, diverted, or even infilled to accommodate the amount of development associated with the industrial revolution. Some of these watercourses are known (for example, parts of the Medlock, Irk and Corn Brook). However, there are many that remain unknown or ‘forgotten’ and continue to flow through old culverts and tunnels beneath the city. The condition, standard of service and exact route of these culverts and tunnels is often unknown but they still present a potential flood risk to local areas in the sub-region. Many parts of the area are currently undergoing a programme of regeneration schemes which will result in significant amounts of development in the future.

Figure 3 Local authorities within the Greater Manchester FRA

14 of 139 Geology The Geology of the Greater Manchester FRA generally consists of a mixture of Manchester Marls, Collyhurst Sandstone and predominantly Sherwood Sandstone which are significant aquifers. The geology of the catchment has a large impact on the landscape, land use, groundwater levels and hydrology of the area, as well as an impact on the potential and function of infiltration SUDs. National and International Designations The Rochdale Canal is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for its importance as a habitat for floating water plant communities. Other designations within the Greater Manchester FRA include the Huddersfield Narrow Canal and Hollinwood Branch Canal as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Partnership Working The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) is an umbrella organisation that represents the nine local authorities in the Greater Manchester FRA and Wigan. The ten local authorities within the Greater Manchester sub-region co-operate on a number of issues, both statutory and non-statutory, where there is the possibility of improving service delivery by working together. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within this FRMP In addition to those partners mentioned we also work closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England. Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Surface Water

Figure 4 Updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW) in the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area

15 of 139 Table 1 Summary flood risk from surface water to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area Surface Water Total in Flood High risk Medium Low risk Risk Area risk Risk to people: Number of people in area: 1,655,150 3,450 17,200 99,250 Number of services: 1,650 20 30 170

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 83,300 500 2,100 8,800 Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 500 20 40 130 Length of railway (km): 180 20 20 30 Agricultural land (ha): 3,950 150 100 300

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters 0 0 0 0 within 50m: Number of EPR installations within 50m: 100 <50 <50 <50 Area of SAC within area (ha): <50 <50 <50 <50 Area of SPA within area (ha): 0 0 0 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 0 0 0 0 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): <50 <50 <50 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 500 <50 <50 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within <50 0 0 0 area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within area: 1,950 20 30 80 Number of Licensed water abstractions within 140 10 0 20 the area:

Conclusions for the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area Conclusions relating to local flood risk and its management across Greater Manchester are:

1. In total, over 27,000 residential properties are within the area at risk of an extreme fluvial flood (once in 1,000 year), including those at risk from the Manchester Ship Canal and 51,000 could be affected by a comparable surface water flood. 2. Flood risk is affected by steep sided valleys in the upper catchments where dense urban development also often follows the river network. Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Tameside all have examples of these and there are many outside the flood risk area in places such as Rossendale and Derbyshire too. 3. Steeper ground in areas such as Ramsbottom, Littleborough, Delph and Mossley leads to fast flowing surface water and rapid inundation, both of which can be hazardous. 4. Areas at risk of significant flooding include older residential areas such as Salford, employment sites, town centres (including Rochdale, Wigan and Ashton-under-Lyne) and a range of community and essential infrastructure. 5. Principal fluvial risk is centred on the major rivers and their key tributaries. 6. Access to hospitals in South Manchester could be affected by surface water flooding. 7. It is important to manage flood risk in the upper reaches through an appropriate

16 of 139 combination of measures including land management and flood storage and protecting and managing active flood plains to ensure risk is not increased downstream; defences are also necessary to protect some communities in these upper reaches. 8. Regeneration can play an important part in reducing or preventing flooding. A good example of this is Salford, where new developments have raised floor levels and incorporate flood resilience measures to reduce impact if a more extreme flood were to occur, [roads can convey floodwater] and where a second flood storage basin is proposed for the River Irwell. 9. Flood risk is often not from a single source and many of the locations with higher flood risk have a combined risk, for example from both surface water and fluvial, or surface water and sewer flooding. 10. There are complex interactions between surface water flooding and the capacity and operation of the sewer network. 11. The changing climate could cause flood flows in North West rivers to increase by 30 to 70%, depending on the scenario used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Surface water flood risk is likely to rise due to higher extreme rainfall intensities than previous values contained in the National Planning Policy Framework – see Section 5 in Part A of the FRMP. Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound this increased flood risk. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans, and some detailed analysis. 12. Important measures in managing flood risk now and in the future (anticipated increase due to climate change) include: sustainable drainage as part of new development, good planning and rural land management.

a. LLFAs, working with the Environment Agency and United Utilities, will develop and carry out a programme of flood risk management measures on the key rivers and their tributaries as a strategic catchment approach including flood storage, enhanced defences, property level resilience and river stewardship. b. LLFAs will work with AGMA and neighbouring initiatives to ensure strategic partnership and co-operation in managing flood risk. c. Promoting and ensuring delivery of sustainable drainage through the planning system, regeneration initiatives, planned maintenance and infrastructure enhancements. d. Developing an integrated drainage strategy for Heywood working with United Utilities. e. Delivering and extending good practice from the Rochdale and Heywood Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder - increasing flood risk awareness and preparedness in high risk communities and businesses including the establishment of community flood action groups and river stewardship initiatives and promoting sign up to flood warning services. f. Promoting and helping to deliver flood resilient properties through property level protection and property maintenance and improvement projects.

17 of 139 Measures across the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area Across the Greater Manchester FRA Catchment there are 42 measures to manage flood risk including; Preventing risk: 1 measure  Bolton Critical Culvert Rehabilitation - Historic evidence indicates that culverts and mill races present a flood risk in Bolton. Undertake a series of rehabilitation schemes to minimise potential flood risk. Preparing for risk: 7 measures  Blackley New Road. Surface water and groundwater flooding appraisal. Investigate groundwater and surface water flood risk. Understand risk of flooding, including frequency and consequences.  Manchester Hidden Culverted Watercourses - Locate the watercourses and undertake a condition and capacity assessment, identifying any connections with sewers and potential for taking additional surface water flows from the overloaded sewer systems as part of a surface water management strategy.  Community Pathfinder. Encourage community led approaches to flood risk management and pilot new approaches to community resilience.  Groundwater Study - Castlewood Road, Kersal - Investigate the extent and cause of the groundwater flooding problem.  Gore Avenue Groundwater study, Salford - Investigate the extent and cause of the groundwater flooding problem.  Manchester Flood Risk Mapping of Ordinary Watercourses. Identify the extent of flooding, the properties affected, and thereby inform the best means of managing fluvial flood risk  Manchester Groundwater Flooding Strategic Study- Identify, map and prioritise the groundwater flood risk areas Protecting from risk: 34 measures  Calve Croft, Sharston, Manchester - Undertake detailed hydraulic modelling of the watercourse to more accurately define flood risk to properties and overland flow routes and the sandard of protection of the existing assets  Calder Avenue, Littleborough Flood Alleviation Scheme. Investigate source of flooding and assess options for mitigation.  Manchester Restoration of Open Channels of Ordinary Watercourses - The objective is to carry out a one-off clearance and restoration of the remaining 20km of the watercourses and to engage with the community through awareness campaigns with the general public and community groups to instil some community ownership and pride for the future state of their local environment.  Bolton Culvert Improvements - Surface water computer modelling of inlets to culverts to prioritise risk and consequence of flooding due to blockage or collapse  Horwich Town Centre Flood Alleviation Project - Detailed modelling being undertaken to determine flood mechanism and potential mitigation measures.  The Salford Flood Risk Management Scheme to address fluvial flood risk from the River Irwell in Broughton. Construction of a flood basin at Castle Irwell is currently underway.  Stockport Road Marple Culvert Rehabilitation – investigate causes of past flooding and assess potential long term solutions.  Bolton Upland Storage Project - Fast response catchments discharging surface water to downstream catchments. Establish locations across the borough of Bolton which could provide flood storage or facilitate land management changes.

18 of 139  Broomes Park, Royton, Oldham - Surface water culvert running at the boundary of the properties backyard surcharges leading to properties flooding. Investigate options to alleviate flood risk.  Ainsworth Rd/Water St, Radcliffe, Bury - Removal of UID and unconsented overflow will reduce flooding risk and reduce risk of water contamination with foul  Churchfields, Dobcross, Oldham - Existing culvert is in poor condition and has insufficient capacity. Proposed solution is replacement and upgrade of culvert.  Delph New Road, Oldham - The existing surface water culvert which runs beneath Delph Lodge and into Gatehead Road currently has no satisfactory outfall. This results in a number of properties adjacent to it to be flooded internally during times of heavy rainfall. The garden of one property is also permanently waterlogged. Implement a flood alleviation scheme to reduce flood risk to 34 residential properties.  Dobcross New Road, Oldham - An existing storm overflow that exists in Dobcross frequently operates incorrectly due to inadequate capacity.  Heywood Surface Water Management Programme - Identify opportunities for future sustainable drainage enhancements and provide a strategic study of surface water and ordinary watercourse focused priorities for Heywood and how they form a part of a wider integrated drainage approach.  Greencroft Meadow, Royton, Oldham - Surface water culvert running at the boundary of the properties backyard surcharges leading to properties flooding. SuDs design and improvement of flooding defence and construction works.  Trevor Road, Winton, Salford - Replace existing culvert which has been constructed in an inconsistent manner with inappropriate materials.  Merton Avenue, Medlock Vale, Oldham - Surface water culvert running underneath properties surcharges leading to properties flooding. Redesign of the surface water drainage layout and construction works.  Mossley Road, Greenfield Oldham - High volumes of water (both surface and foul) are coming through a large masonry retaining wall and into the garden and premises of a residential property. Replace existing culvert in Mossley Road and reconstruct existing masonry retaining wall  Partridge Way, Chadderton, Oldham - Surface water culvert running at the boundary of the properties backyard collapsing causing flooding to properties. SuDS system design and improvement of flooding defence and construction works.  Pencil Brook - River Beal, Shaw Oldham - Very large volumes of both surface water and ground water coming from land adjacent to Smallbrook Road / Woodend .  Shaw, Oldham, Surface Water Management – Flood risk issues Replace existing surface water culvert with priority being given to SuDS solutions.  Turf Lea Fold Farm, Hazel Grove - Six terrace houses along Turf Lea Road suffer frequent flooding from surface water runoff from neighbouring former farm fields. Flooding likely to be a result of greenfield runoff and culvert capacity of field drains underneath properties. Scheme to investigate possibly failed land drains and suitability of SuDS.  Sumner Street, Shaw, Oldham - Surface water culvert running at the boundary of the properties backyard collapsing causing flooding to properties. SuDS design and improvement of flooding defence and construction works.  Stockport Rd, Romiley - Investigation into surface water culvert that passes underneath Romiley railway station and potential interactions with United Utilities sewer network and Peak Forest Canal.  Schools Hill, Cheadle - Investigation into surface water flooding associated with a culverted ordinary watercourse (tributary to Micker Brook) along Wilmslow Road. It has been reported

19 of 139 that historical flooding is a result of existing culvert capacity issues and collapsed sections at a low point on the road.  Barlow Fold Road, Romiley - Investigation into capacity of surface water culvert along Barlow Road, which has a history of overflowing and flooding key infrastructure. Localised flooding is likely to be a capacity issue due to difficult sewer route and problems with culvert collapsed and outfall to a small ordinary watercourse (tributary to the River Goyt).  King William IV Fishing Lake Outfall and Overflow Replacement The proposed solution is to assess the capacity of the main outfall and undertake its upgrade in Year 4. Subsequently in Year 5, the replacement of the penstock chamber to allow safe unblocking of the emergency drain down pipe is proposed.  Road Drainage Flood Management Strategy. This study will seek to use Flood Map for Surface Water outputs, SWMP outputs, Lidar data and Tree Layouts across the City to identify areas with properties and critical access roads at a greater risk of flooding following a blockage to a highway gulley. This will prioritise areas for considering the connections into surface water sewers and combined sewers and capacity issues to potentially outline alternative outfalls into ordinary watercourses.  Trash Screen and Culvert Rehabilitation. A number of trash screens at culvert entrances are failing and need replacement to reduce the risk of flooding and to aid with maintainence regimes. The objective is to replace the trash screens and underdertake any improvement work on the headwall structures of culverts to increase conveyance. The proposal is for the works to be undertaken over a 3 year programme  Rusholme and Moss Side Surface Water Management Scheme. Build an integrated model of the surface water system and of the brooks to assess capacity/flood risk and to investigate options for increasing surface water connections; assess options for SuDS retrofit to alleviate flooding.  Shaw, Cringle, Ley and Willow Brook. Build an integrated model of the surface water system and of the brooks to assess capacity/flood risk and to investigate options for increasing surface water connections; assess options for SuDS retrofit to alleviate flooding.  Manchester - Inspect fluvial asset conditions on ordinary watercourses and address any issues that may arise in relation to their maintenance and present condition.  Facilitate the formation of a steering group to identify and manage flood risk from ordinary watercourses and surface water through Manchester City Centre.  Bolton - Inspect fluvial asset conditions on ordinary watercourses and address any issues that may arise in relation to their maintenance and present condition. Recovery and review of risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work.

20 of 139 2.1 Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area

Introduction to the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area Using the Flood Map for Surface Water and the Environment Agency's flood risk thresholds a Flood Risk Area (FRA) was identified in Liverpool and Sefton. The Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area was identified with approximately 71,269 people at risk up to a 1 in 1000 (0.1%) chance of flooding (Table 2). The Liverpool and Sefton FRA incorporates Liverpool City Council and Sefton Borough Council. Liverpool is a predominantly urban area of approximately 114 km2 with a population of approximately 400,000. Sefton covers an area of approximately 155 km2 with a population of approximately 300,000. As Liverpool developed the surface water system grew around the existing open channel network and the resultant drainage system comprised a series of small sub-catchments linked by ditches and watercourses. As the open fields were developed, minor channels were either culverted, laid with land drains and backfilled, or simply filled in. In the borough of Sefton, the low lying nature of the land means that water needs to be pumped through it in order to drain out to the sea. Water levels are controlled under different winter and summer regimes to prevent flooding, to provide irrigation and to prevent peat shrinkage.

Figure 5 Overview map of the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area.

21 of 139 Land Use and Management Liverpool and Sefton experienced rapid expansion in the 19th century during the Industrial Revolution due to the growth in the wool and cotton industry. Since the 1920s much of this industry has been in decline leading to areas of social deprivation within the FRA. These communities will be more susceptible to the impacts of flooding. The northern half of Sefton, from Formby to Southport, is quite narrow and has a mix of urban areas, Formby, Ainsdale and Southport, bordered by coastal dunes to the west and arable and grazing fields to the east. The area immediately south and east of Formby is typically rural, dominated by arable fields until the edge of the urban areas of Crosby, Netherton and Maghull. There is some woodland between Ince Blundell and Crosby, however, woodland cover in Sefton is not extensive. Lydiate in the north east is also bordered by arable fields. Liverpool has a substantial network of ordinary watercourses across the city which is comprised of 29.7 km of culverted watercourse and 3.6 km of open watercourse sections. This has all led to a reduction in the efficiency of the original land drainage system. Many of the culverted sections are over 150 years old and in poor condition. Potential collapses to these culverts pose a considerable risk of future flooding especially when combined with further development of the area. Numerous areas in the FRMP Area are under regeneration and redevelopment. This alteration of the area could offer opportunity for the implementation of Sustainable Drainage systems (SuDS) and reduce the amount of runoff in the area. Geology The Geology of the Liverpool and Sefton FRA generally consists of a mixture of Manchester Marls, Collyhurst Sandstone and predominantly Sherwood Sandstone which are more significant aquifers. The geology of the catchment has a large impact on the landscape, land use, groundwater levels and hydrology of the area, as well as an impact on the potential and function of infiltration SUDs.

Figure 6 Local authorities within the Liverpool and Sefton FRA

22 of 139 National and International Designations The following international and national designations are present within the area: - The Ribble and Alt Estuaries Ramsar Site and Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). - The Mersey Estuary Ramsar site, SPA and SSSI. - Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore Ramsar site, SAC and potential SPA and SSSI. - Sefton Coast Special Area of Conservation and SSSI. - Hesketh Golf Links SSSI. - Five historical parks and gardens. - 25 locally designated conservation areas. Partnership Working The Association of Liverpool and Sefton Authorities are part of the Merseyside flood risk partnership group. The local authorities within the Merseyside partnership group co-operate on a number of issues, both statutory and non-statutory, where there is the possibility of improving service delivery by working together. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within this FRMP In addition to those partners mentioned we also work closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England.

23 of 139 Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Surface Water

Figure 7 Updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW) in the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area.

Table 2 Summary flood risk from surface water to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area Surface Water Total in Flood High risk Medium Low risk Risk Area risk Risk to people: Number of people in area: 659,350 2,400 19,800 49,100 Number of services: 710 <10 30 60

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 34,250 250 1,450 3,350 Number of airports: 1 0 1 0 Length of roads (km): 190 <10 30 50 Length of railway (km): 70 <10 20 10 Agricultural land (ha): 1,400 <50 150 100

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters 0 0 0 0 within 50m:

24 of 139 Surface Water Total in Flood High risk Medium Low risk Risk Area risk Number of EPR installations within 50m: 25 7 8 10 Area of SAC within area (ha): 300 0 0 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 750 0 0 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 600 0 0 0 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 700 <50 <50 50 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 750 0 <50 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 50 550 <50 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within <50 0 0 0 area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within area: 1,710 <10 40 60

Number of Licensed water abstractions within 80 <10 <10 10 the area:

Conclusions for the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area Conclusions relating to local flood risk and its management across the Liverpool and Sefton flood risk area are: Liverpool City Council first started gathering data about Liverpool’s watercourse network in 2008 as part of the Liverpool Land Drainage Investigations. The emphasis was on gaining a good understanding of the 29.7km culverted watercourse and the 3.6km open watercourse network in the city as flood risk assets. Knowledge of Liverpool’s watercourse network before this investigation work started was very limited but has now increased significantly and will continue to increase with future investigations. All of this vital asset data has now also been inputted into Liverpool City Council MapInfo based asset register. The condition of Liverpool’s 29.7km culverted watercourse network is varied with some sections identified as being in poor condition leading to a risk of collapse and flooding. The identified sections have been prioritised and will be put forward for future funding bids. The 3.6km of open watercourse within Liverpool’s boundary are prone to blockages from fly- tipping, siltation and vegetation. Further work is planned on installing debris screens to prevent blockages beneath the highway and to improving access requirements to enable regular maintenance activities to be carried out. Ten key flood hotspot areas in Liverpool have been identified and detailed modelling has been completed for these sites. The results will be reviewed and schemes submitted for future funding. In Sefton, surface water remains the most significant source of flood risk, with most of the urban areas being affected. Surface water flood risk models have been refined and updated by the LLFA to take the latest information into account. Part A of the FRMP includes estimates, produced nationally by the Environment Agency, of the number of people at risk of flooding from rivers and sea and from surface water. Sefton Council have undertaken a separate analysis which indicates a lower (but still large) number of properties at risk from surface water. The principal difference is that the LLFA’s analysis assumes a greater depth of water is required before properties sustain damage. The local analysis indicates 3,119 buildings of between 30 and 100m2 are at risk from surface water flooding with a 1 in 100 chance of occurring in a given year and after applying a small allowance for climate change. These building sizes have been chosen to exclude domestic garages and small outbuildings, and very large buildings such as warehouses.

25 of 139 Sefton Council is reviewing drainage and water management systems in detail and is taking a system wide approach to identify solutions to reduce flood risk. Sub catchments within these systems will be analysed in detail to understand their influence on the wider system. A typical example of work by the Local Authority is the drainage improvements, funded through the Local Transport Plan, which will reduce surface water flooding of the road and several properties at Kenyon’s Lane, Maghull. Sefton Council is looking to work more closely with communities at risk of flooding to identify solutions and improve resilience. Awareness of flood risk and resilience is being raised through the continued promotion and distribution of the ‘Floodready.co.uk’ website and leaflet to communities at risk. Across the borough, Sefton Council is also encouraging riparian owners (owner of land adjoining, above or with a watercourse running through it) to deliver their responsibilities with regard to watercourse maintenance, by supporting residents to develop maintenance plans. A large proportion of Sefton relies on pumped drainage systems to remove water through Crossens and Altmouth Pumping stations. The LLFA is looking to control more water at source to reduce reliance on these pumps. Groundwater levels in Liverpool and Sefton are known to be rising due to a decline in industry and the rate of water abstraction. This is likely to increase in the future, leading to an increased risk of flooding to basements, underground floor space and low lying areas. Groundwater monitoring is taking place at key sites in Sefton and is planned at various locations across Liverpool where groundwater flooding is a problem. Sefton Council are proposing to lead a study of natural flood management opportunities on behalf of Merseyside Lead Local Flood Authorities. This will result in projects which reduce flood risk, improve water quality and enhance habitats. The overall approach and programme will have strong links with work by other organisations with similar aims. The changing climate could cause flood flows in North West rivers to increase by 30 to 70%, depending on the scenario used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Surface water flood risk is likely to rise due to higher extreme rainfall intensities than previous values contained in the National Planning Policy Framework – this is explained further in Section 5 of Part A of the FRMP. Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound this increased flood risk. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans, and some detailed analysis. Measures across the Liverpool and Sefton Flood Risk Area Across the Liverpool and Sefton FRA Catchment there are 13 measures to manage flood risk including; Preventing risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work Preparing for risk: 1 measure  Flood Risk Educational Resource Pilot - Produce an interactive educational resource for North West schools to raise public awareness of flood risks. Protecting from risk: 11 measures  Lower Tue Brook Culvert, Liverpool - Replace section, reconstruct headwall and construct sump at outfall.  Churchdown Park Lake – The aim is to implement a flood risk reduction scheme to protect households and highway from regular flooding.  Wavertree Culvert – Redirect the watercourse around the restricted section to restore the capacity of the culvert at Heywood Road and CCTV survey other restricted culverts for condition data.

26 of 139  Liverpool Debris screens and access - Replace the existing debris screens and outfall structures with new to meet current standards.  Mab Lane Surface Water Culvert, Liverpool - Replace or reline culvert sections along watercourse length.  Upper Brook Surface Water Management, Liverpool - Replace or reline culvert section  Crosby Marine Lake to Formby Point Strategy Delivery Programme. The strategy study recommended mixture of capital and revenue maintenance to extend life of defences with rebuild deferred to later in the programme. The defences will need some form of replacement or significant capital maintenance to extend lifetimes.  Sefton Strategic Surface Water Management Plan Delivery Programme. The first generation of the surface water management plan modelled flood risk using available data. There were a number of assumptions made as data wasn't available, such as culverts, canal and railway. As and when data is available the model will be updated and refined to provide better focus to reduce surface water flood risk and look to deliver appropriate schemes. The initial strategy will explore a variety of options and identify and prioritise a number of different schemes at different locations across the borough.  Four Acres, Maghull Asset Management Plan – Identify and prioritise options for managing the residual flood risk of the community at risk in Fouracres Road. These options will be developed with the local community whilst supporting them to become more resilient to potential future events.  Northwest Strategic Coastal Monitoring Programme – Address the inconsistent manner by which coastal monitoring has historically been undertaken along the north west coastline and to ensure a complete coverage along the entire length. Also ensuring that a coherent package of monitoring data collection, collation and analysis is undertaken.  Formby Strategic Flood Risk Management Programme - Formby area has had a number of recent flooding incidents primarily from surface water. The area was identified within the SWMP and PFRA as being at risk of significant past and future flooding. Disparate schemes have led to limited benefit and a coordinate approach is needed to reduce flooding across Formby. A variety of options will be considered and implemented, including attenuation, resilience, re-routing watercourse and up-grading watercourses to deliver a reduction in flood risk.  Sefton Flood Storage and Wet Habitat Creation - The programme will identify and deliver opportunities for habitat creation and enhancements as part of flood/erosion works that using flood storage as the main delivery options. The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

27 of 139 3 Conclusions and measures to manage risk in North West River Basin District catchments

The following sections consider the measures for each of the following catchments in the North West RBD:

Derwent South Lakes Kent and Leven Lune Wyre Ribble Douglas Alt Crossens Irwell Upper Mersey Lower Mersey Weaver Gowy

Table 3 Lead local flood authorities in the North West RBD

LLFA Relevant management Link to further information catchment • Wyre Voluntary contribution to the • Ribble FRMP.

Local Authority Strategy

Information • Ribble Voluntary contribution to the • Irwell FRMP.

• Douglas Local Authority Strategy

Information • Irwell Local Authority Strategy • Lower Mersey Information • Upper Mersey

• Douglas • Upper Mersey Local Authority Strategy • Irwell Information

• Upper Mersey Voluntary contribution to the • Weaver Gowy FRMP.

• Dee Please contact the local authority for further information about their local flood risk management strategy

28 of 139

LLFA Relevant management Link to further information catchment

• Weaver Gowy Voluntary contribution to the • Lower Mersey FRMP.

• Dee Local Authority Strategy Information • Lune Voluntary contribution to the • Kent and Leven FRMP.

• South West Lakes Local Authority Strategy Information

• Lower Mersey Voluntary contribution to the • Weaver Gowy FRMP.

Local Authority Strategy Information • Alt Crossens Voluntary contribution to the • Lower Mersey FRMP.

Please contact the local authority for further information about their local flood risk management strategy • Irwell Local Authority Strategy • Ribble Information • Lune

• Kent and Leven • Wyre • Alt Crossens • Douglas • Lower Mersey • Lower Mersey Please contact the local • Alt Crossens authority for further information about their local flood risk management strategy

• Upper Mersey Local Authority Strategy • Irwell Information

• Upper Mersey Local Authority Strategy • Irwell Information

• Irwell Local Authority Strategy Information • Upper Mersey

• Upper Mersey Local Authority Strategy • Lower Mersey Information

29 of 139 LLFA Relevant management Link to further information catchment • Weaver Gowy • Alt Crossens Local Authority Strategy

• Lower Mersey Information • Lower Mersey Voluntary contribution to the • Douglas FRMP.

• Alt Crossens Local Authority Strategy Information

• Upper Mersey Local Authority Strategy Information

• Upper Mersey Local Authority Strategy • Irwell Information

• Upper Mersey Local Authority Strategy • Weaver Gowy Information

• Weaver Gowy Voluntary contribution to the • Lower Mersey FRMP.

Local Authority Strategy Information • Lower Mersey Voluntary contribution to the • Douglas FRMP.

Local Authority Strategy Information • Lower Mersey Voluntary contribution to the • Dee FRMP. Local Authority Strategy Information

30 of 139 3.2 The Derwent Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Derwent area is within North West Cumbria, in the North West of England. The majority of the area lies within the administrative boundary of Allerdale Borough Council, with a small proportion within the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA). It covers a total area of 1,235 km2 and has four significant river systems (the Derwent, Ellen, Wampool and Waver) which drain the northern fells of the Lake District and the Solway Basin into the Irish Sea. The River Derwent and its major tributaries cover the southern part of the area and rises in the high peaks of the Lake District draining into the Irish Sea at Workington. The River Ellen covers the central part of the area and drains into the Irish Sea at Maryport. The Rivers Wampool and Waver cover the upper portion of the area and drain into the Solway Firth at Moricambe Bay. The area is bounded to the south by the Lake District high fells, to the east by the Eden catchment boundary and to the north and west by Moricambe Bay (not to be confused with Morecambe Bay) and the Solway Firth respectively. Just under half of the area lies in the Lake District National Park Land Use and Management The catchment is predominantly rural with only 4 main towns. The upland areas of the catchment are dominated by semi-natural vegetation and bare rock, supporting rough grassland, heathland and peatlands. In the lowland areas of the catchment semi-improved and improved grassland for grazing is common. Extensive woodland blocks occur in the south of the catchment. The coastline consists of mudflats, beaches and salt marshes with fragmented areas of raised peat bog within the River Wampool catchment.

Figure 8 Overview map of the Derwent catchment.

31 of 139 Agricultural activity is extensive throughout the catchment. In the upland areas, sheep farming dominates, whilst dairy farming is more common in the lower part of the catchment on the lowland plains. The quality of agricultural land within the catchment is generally poor but does improve slightly from the upper reaches to the lower reaches of the area. Most of the land within the catchment is classified as Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Grade 3 (moderate-good) with some small areas of Grade 2 (very good) land just west of Wigton. Within the Lake District National Park the land is of the poorest quality (mostly grade 5, with some grade 4 at lower altitudes). The better agricultural land (ALC Grades 2 and 3) in the area tends to be in valley bottoms or the southern coastal plain. These areas correspond to typical areas of flood risk and so potentially large areas are exposed to rare occurrences of flooding. It is estimated that 8% of Grade 2 and 3 land is thought to be at risk of flooding from a 0.1% event. Although much less land will be at risk of prolonged or frequent inundation, this can affect the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, reducing quality. It may also damage crops, make pasture unsuitable for grazing, or erode topsoil. Geology The rocks of the Lake District record 500 million years of geological changes and are a controlling influence on the hydrology of the area. The oldest rocks are the Skiddaw slates, formed when sand and mud were deposited at the bottom of an ocean 500 million years ago. The central high fells of the Lake District are an ancient volcanic dome which erupted some 50 million years later, solidifying into Borrowdale Volcanic rock and granite. A long period followed when different types of sediment were deposited on top of the volcanic rock, eventually forming rocks such as limestone, sandstone and coal. Volcanic and sedimentary rocks were then eroded into valleys by the glaciers of the last ice age (about 25,000 years ago) to form the present landscape. Although the solid rocks of the area have a major influence on the landscape, the effects of glaciation during the last ice age are extremely important. Glaciers scoured ‘U’-shaped valleys and over deepened the valley floors to produce basins which are today occupied by the lakes. Glacial erosion of comparatively weak rock to the north of the catchment produced land of relatively low relief which today forms the Solway Basin. The glaciers carried with them vast quantities of rock debris which was deposited as glacial till or clay in valleys or land of low relief. On the fells, deposits are thin or nonexistent. Present day erosion of glacial deposits provides a ready supply of sediment to the rivers of the area. The landscape formed by this geology is spectacularly steep in the south, and fairly flat in the north. Both factors are strong influences on the flood generating capacity of its rivers. In the steeper south rainfall may rapidly turn into surface runoff and travel at speed down steep watercourses. Rainfall in the upland fells can be highly localised and so surface runoff leading to flooding can also be highly localised. This can impact upon settlements in one valley with no flooding recorded in adjacent valleys. In contrast the flat nature of the north of the catchment will generally mean that the onset of any flooding will be less rapid. The superficial deposits will be deeper than that of the south and so will have a greater capacity to hold water and prevent the rapid transformation of rainfall into runoff. The major aquifer within the area is the Permo-Triassic Sandstone which dominates outcrops in an east to west strip across the north of the area, extending from Thursby in the east to Allonby and Maryport in the west. Protection of the aquifer is offered by drift deposits in that area which includes boulder clay. The presence of permeable drift deposits, such as marine deposits, glacial sands, and gravel allow surface and perched groundwater to enter the aquifer. National and International Designations Within the area there are a number of designated sites of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. This scoping report concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these sites provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance would be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes.

32 of 139 There are eight internationally important sites within, or partially within, the Derwent catchment. The Upper Solway Flats and Marshes is designated a Ramsar site and a Special Protection Area (SPA) and has area corresponding to the Solway Firth SAC. These designations recognise the international importance of the site for wetland birds. The seven other internationally important sites, all designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), are:  River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC  Solway Firth SAC  South Solway Mosses SAC  Lake District High Fells SAC  Borrowdale Woodland Complex SAC  North Pennine Dales Meadows SAC  Clints Quarry SAC. The most significant of these is the River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC which incorporates the entire length of the River Derwent and all its major tributaries (also designated a SSSI) and Bassenthwaite Lake (also designated a SSSI). Natural England’s Conservation Objectives for the designated sites are to maintain in favourable condition (or restore if not currently in favourable condition) the above features. There are 56 SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) located within, or partially within, the River Derwent area. These are designated for a variety of habitats including wetlands, woodlands, meadows, mires, quarries. The area also contains seven National Nature Reserves (NNR) which are also designated SSSIs. Partnership Working Within the Catchment, Flood Risk Management Authorities have developed good working relationships with each other and other interested parties. United Utilities (UU) are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues with the Derwent catchment. Working between Risk Management Authorities is helped by the presence of the existing Making Space for Water Group (MSFWG). Each district council in Cumbria has a MSFWG which is made up of representatives of the LLFA, Environment Agency, district councils, UU and Highways Authority. This group works to resolve minor flood risk issues that require joint working in any particular district. Highways England have identified 6 locations on the A66 where they intend to carry out works to protect the carriageway from flooding and keep the road open to traffic. During financial year 2015/16 works will be undertaken at: 1 A66 Smithy Cottage and 2 A66 Embleton near Bassenthwaite Lake. The remaining projects will be taken forward in subsequent years. Linking to the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Derwent North West Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme; catchment level government funded improvements; For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential.

33 of 139 Examples of funded measures identified in the NW RBMP that will deliver WFD improvements in this catchment include water company investment to deliver water quality improvements in the River Ellen and funding via the Coal Board to help reduce minewater pollution from Force Crag mine to improve water quality in Bassenthwaite Lake. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected].

Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 9 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Derwent catchment

34 of 139 Table 4 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Derwent Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 71,800 300 1,950 3,900 <50 Number of services: 210 <10 <10 <10 0

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential 15,150 200 500 850 <50 properties: Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 120 <10 <10 <10 0 Length of railway (km): 20 <10 0 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 26,200 800 500 600 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 0 0 0 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations within 9 0 0 0 0 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 16,000 1,700 50 50 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): <50 <50 0 0 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): <50 <50 0 0 0 Area of World Heritage Site within 3,200 200 200 150 <50 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 17,200 1,900 100 100 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within 100 0 <50 <50 0 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient 250 <50 <50 <50 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 840 30 40 80 0 area: Number of Licensed water 60 10 <10 <10 0 abstractions within the area:

6,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Derwent Catchment, representing approximately 8 % of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 1,500 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Derwent catchment. Approximately 7% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Approximately 12% of SSSI sites and 100% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area.

35 of 139 Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 10 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Derwent Catchment

Table 5 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Derwent Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 71,800 4,300 Number of services: 210 10

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 15,150 850 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 120 <10 Length of railway (km): 20 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 26,200 650

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 9 0 Area of SAC within area (ha): 16,000 1,350 Area of SPA within area (ha): <50 0

36 of 139 Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): <50 0 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 3,200 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 17,200 1,550 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 100 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): 250 0 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 840 70 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 60 10

Over 4,000 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Derwent Catchment, representing approximately 6 % of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 800 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea in the Derwent catchment. Approximately 2.5% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Reservoirs. Approximately 9% of SSSI sites are at risk of flooding in the area. Conclusions for the Derwent Catchment The catchments within the Derwent all receive a great deal of rainfall. Combined with the impermeable underlying geology and waterlogged upland soils, this produces large amounts of run-off. The Derwent catchment has two significant river systems the River Derwent and the River Ellen. The main risk areas on these rivers are Cockermouth and Keswick (on the Derwent) There are many smaller settlements at risk from localised rapid runoff from the fells which are mostly located within uplands of the Derwent catchment. In addition, some coastal areas may be subject to tidal flooding including parts of Workington, Maryport and Flimby. Following the floods of 2009 major flood alleviation schemes including raised embankments, walls and flood gates have been built at Cockermouth and Keswick. There is a programme of inspections and maintenance for defences built as part of these schemes. Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources; rivers, the sea, surface water, ordinary watercourses, sewers and reservoirs. Unlike other areas of the North West RBD groundwater is not a significant issue in the Derwent catchment. There are more than 2500 properties at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets out the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approached development then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the SMP may be reasonable or conservative. The Environment Agency will continue to carry out work to de-culvert the watercourse and make the reservoir safe in Barepot to reduce the risk of flooding to properties in the area. Develop a flood risk management scheme for Elliot Park (Keswick) that is economically, environmentally and technically feasible, and that is acceptable to the local residents. Work with Cumbria County Council to alleviate flooding related problems on Penrith Road (Keswick). Cumbria County Council has submitted a bid to secure FDGiA funding in 2015/16. The Environment Agency will work with Professional Partners to remove a dangerous 3rd party structure on Gategill Beck this will remove the risk of breach of the dam and associated flooding to properties and infrastructure downstream in Threlkeld. Significant flooding occurred in December 2015, when heavy rainfall from Storm Desmond fell on already saturated ground across the North West. The Derwent catchment received 341 mm of

37 of 139 rainfall in 24 hours from the 5th December. This is estimated to be a storm event with 1 in 1000 (0.1%) chance of occurring in any given year. The Ouse Bridge river monitoring gauge upstream of Cockermouth recorded its highest ever peak flow of 395 m3/s. The December 2015 flooding affected communities in this catchment including Keswick, Braithwaite, Cockermouth, Workington, Flimby, Maryport, Allonby, Aspatria, Blennerhasset, Baggrow, Braithwaite, Broughton Cross, Brigham, Crosby, Dearham, Grange High and Low Lorton, Lodore, Seatoller, Southwaite, and West Newton in this catchment with circa 1,437 homes and businesses flooded. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes a review of existing defences in Keswick and Cockermouth, asset inspection and repair, community engagement, investigation of flood events across Risk Management Authorities to understand flood mechanisms and the establishing of the new Cumbria Floods Partnership Group. This group will consider what improvements to flood defences in the region may be needed, look at upstream options for slowing key rivers to reduce the intensity of water flows at peak times and build stronger links between local residents, community groups and flood defence planning. The group will be chaired by the Floods Minister and made up of local authorities, the Environment Agency, community groups and partner organisations (e.g. rivers trusts, national parks, United Utilities etc). The group will publish a Cumbria Action Plan in the summer of 2016. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part A is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans, and some detailed analysis. Flood risk from ‘local sources’ and sewers is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary, or in others. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Derwent Catchment Across the Derwent Catchment there are 27 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preparing for risk: 10 measures  Undertake consultation during implementation phase, including foreshore freehold owner from Workington to Flimby.  Develop a flood risk plan for Innovia Films industrial site in Wigton

38 of 139  Review whether a flood warning service could be effectively implemented in some of these vulnerable villages using the recent forecasting model build for this area. Lead times will be short and false alarm rates may be high but some warning may be feasible.  A more detailed assessment of risk at Allonby would be beneficial. Over 100 properties are indicated as being at fluvial risk here based on National Flood Map but the accuracy should be verified.  A more detailed assessment of risk in the low lying areas to the east of Silloth would be beneficial. Over 100 properties are indicated as being at fluvial flood risk here based on National Flood Map but the accuracy should be verified. Protecting from risk: 17 measures  Develop adaptation plan including case for future intervention or local defences at Bank End to inform future policy. Consider risks to coastal road and heritage features and need for short term protection or adaptation. Undertake study to investigate the impacts of erosion of Dubmill Point on Mawbray village. Develop approach to adaptation for coastal road. Undertake a more detailed investigation of the likely impacts of coastal change on historic environment features of the World Heritage Site and propose adaptation approaches such as local temporary protection from erosion and /or recording before loss of features at risk.  Lake District valley river systems function in a more natural way to reduce flood risk: National Trust to work with stakeholders and tenant farmers to explore natural flood risk measures: Look at where flood risk and erosion can be reduced by natural methods, whilst balancing agricultural productivity, Farmer income, Water Framework Directive and Natura 2000 targets  Promote Slowing the Flow/Natural Flood Management to benefit communities at risk of flooding: Consider river restoration opportunities, including Borrowdale. Work would focus on flood and erosion damages and be subject to consultation with local communities and Farmers with consideration of impacts on the landscape and amenities. Instrumentation and monitoring, if part of any changes, could provide important evidence for future land management change.  Undertake a study to consider the justification for reducing flood risk further in Wigton and appropriate ways of doing this, accepting that major works are unlikely to be a priority for national funding in view of the existing standard of flood protection. Encourage the use of flood resilience and flood proofing to existing properties in Wigton through the provision of information and advice and seek appropriate opportunities for funding these measures.  Where localised SW problems exist or occur at villages within this largely rural policy unit, they should be addressed with an appropriate response by promoting flood resilience measures and / or small scale local works either by the integrated urban drainage group (now MSFW groups) of EA, UU, Allerdale Borough Council and Cumbria County Council (now LLFA), or if justifiable by the EA. Recovery and review of risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

39 of 139 3.2 The South West Lakes Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The South West Lakes study area is made up of a series of sub-catchments that are located in North West England, covering the west and south of Cumbria, extending from Whitehaven in the north, the Lake District high fells in the east and extending south to Barrow-in-Furness. The South West Lakes study area has a main river length of 295 km, draining a total catchment area of 900km2 and contains some of the highest numbers of rivers and streams in England. The catchment is also amongst the wettest and steepest sloped in England and Wales. Run-off following rainfall is generally rapid, due to the relatively impermeable underlying geology and sparse cover by drift material in the upland reaches. Flood risk is confined to the main towns and other dispersed villages across the catchment. The highest risks to property, people and infrastructure are in Whitehaven due to flooding from Pow Beck (and other sources), Egremont from the River Ehen, Dalton from Poaka Beck and Barrow from sewer flooding. There is some intermediate flood risk in Cleator Moor, Braystones and East Barrow. Land Use and Management 92 per cent of the catchment is agricultural land, with approximately 24 per cent of the catchment area Grade 3 agricultural land. The remaining 68 % of the catchment area is poor quality, Grade 4 and 5 agricultural land.

Figure 11 Overview map of the South West Lakes catchment

40 of 139 The exposed and open high fells are also characterised by rough grassland, dwarf shrub heaths, peatlands, bracken and areas of rock outcrop and screes. Rock basins, arêtes, gills, tarns, waterfalls and fast-flowing streams form elements of this landscape. These are subject to soil erosion and some areas are undergoing ecological change as a result of overgrazing while under grazing is of concern in other parts. In the high fells, the prehistoric broadleaved woodlands, which covered all but the highest crags have been replaced mainly by grasslands (which suffer from impoverished soils). Reduced stocking rates may produce flood risk benefits by improving soil structure and therefore infiltration rates. Within the lower uplands (to the east and west of the Duddon Valley and west of the highest hills to the north) the exposed hillsides, which consist of unimproved (no fertilisers or herbicides applied, no drainage, ploughing or reseeding) rough grazing land, are drained by narrow ghylls and streams and form semi-wild and rugged landscapes. In the upland areas bogs, vegetation and certain types of woodland can increase storage. The gently sloping valley sides and flat valley floors of the lower uplands consist of semi- improved and improved pasture, with small copses and hedgerows with hedgerow trees. Post war, there has been a trend of hedge rows being removed, recently this has been slowed down and more are being planted, in places. Loss of hedge and ditch features to enlarge field size can have a local impact on flood development by reducing storage in shallow inundations and creating fast overland flow paths to watercourses. Broadleaved woodlands are also found on the lower slopes of the valleys, but only sparse scrubby woodland is found on the steeper valley sides. Mosaics of semi-improved grasslands, woodland blocks and scrubby vegetation occur at lower altitudes along with surrounding farmsteads. In low lying areas (the coastal plain and on plateaux and valley heads) poorly drained land often supports unimproved wetland habitats including mires, marshy grasslands and reed swamp. The coastal plain consists of relatively rich agricultural land of improved pasture, grazed by cattle, dairy herds and sheep. Soil compaction may occur as a result of livestock grazing and the use of heavy machinery. Where this is the case an increased run off response may result. The long term effect of this is soil degradation and compaction leading to greater overland flow and the non use of moisture storage deeper in the soil profile. Greater run-off will in turn lead to higher peak flood flows. This situation is exacerbated if machinery and animals encroach onto waterlogged soils. The coastline is made up of shingle beaches, inter-tidal sand and mudflats with sections of saltmarsh, sand dunes and sandy beaches. Areas of lowland raised mire (plant communities developed on waterlogged ground) are located at the head of the Duddon Estuary and moss lands occur within the lower Duddon and Esk estuaries, with semi-natural grasslands present in some of the low lying areas. There are also small basin mires on the coastal plain between the Esk and the Duddon estuaries and at the lower end of the Esk valley. These areas are mainly undeveloped and should remain so due to being environmentally protected and due to the general nature of the land (waterlogged or on the coast). Geology The high, rugged and steep sided fells of the South West Lakes are composed of a complex sequence of volcanic rocks (approximately 500 million years old). Sometime after they were formed, the volcanic rocks were metamorphosed through the intrusion of a large body of granite (Eskdale Granite). This granite is exposed in Ennerdale and Eskdale. These rocks are generally impermeable and, therefore, lead to high runoff levels, fast response time and consequently higher flood peaks. The geology of the coastal plain is made up of two distinct groups. Firstly, there are the Permo-Triassic sandstones. This is best seen at St Bees Head where the highest and most striking coastal cliffs in Cumbria occur. This bedrock follows the coastal plain beyond the southern edge of the South West Lakes catchment. This geology is more permeable and

41 of 139 can, therefore, influence the lower end of the catchment by increasing response times and lowering flood peaks. To the north of St Bees Head are the earlier Carboniferous coal measure rocks. Mudstones and siltstones can be found inter-bedded between the layers of coal. The area around Whitehaven and Workington is largely made up of these types of stone. The permeability of this geology is greater than the volcanic rocks but not as permeable as the sandstones on the coastal plain. The geology does not significantly influence flood risk in the Whitehaven and Harrington (south Workington) sub catchments. These are mainly urban watercourses and are heavily influenced by manmade interventions such as culverts, bridges, walls and watercourse debris. The predominant drift geology cover across the SW Lakes comprises glacial till with some upland peat extents and isolated alluvial sand areas. The till can generally be characterised as stiff to hard sandy clay with cobbles and boulders. This boulder clay till is typically weakly permeable and not expected to contain any significant groundwater. National and International Designations The South West Lakes catchment is a rich environment, containing a number of important environmental sites and high quality river systems, a summary of this is provided below.  Seven Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and two Special Protection Areas (SPAs)  Numerous Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). 9 of the SSSIs are water related, five of which are at risk of flooding. Water Level Management Plans (WLMPs) have been prepared for two of the wetland SSSIs. These plans identify water requirements, availability etc. for these important sites.  Five National Nature Reserves (NNRs) (three Local Nature Reserves)  Three Natural Areas: Cumbrian Coast, West Cumbrian Coastal Plain and Cumbrian Fells and Dales Partnership Working Within the Catchment, Flood Risk Management Authorities have developed good working relationships with each other and other interested parties. United Utilities (UU) are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues with the South West Lakes catchment. Working between Risk Management Authorities is helped by the presence of the existing Making Space for Water Group (MSFWG). Each district council in Cumbria has a MSFWG which is made up of representatives of the LLFA (Cumbria County Council), Environment Agency, district, UU and Highways Authority. This group works to resolve minor flood risk issues that require joint working in any particular district. Linking with the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the South West Lakes Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme; catchment level government funded improvements; For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This

42 of 139 will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential. An example of funded measures identified in the NW RBMP that will deliver WFD improvements in this catchment include water company investment to deliver increased compensation flows from Poaka Beck Reservoir. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected].

Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 12 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the South West Lakes catchment. 43 of 139 Table 6 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the South West Lakes Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 172,800 700 2,300 4,100 300 Number of services: 330 <10 <10 <10 0

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential 20,050 350 500 750 <50 properties: Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 110 <10 <10 <10 0 Length of railway (km): 100 <10 <10 <10 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 21,250 1,000 600 750 <10

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 2 0 2 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations 16 3 0 3 0 within 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 6,700 1,150 300 250 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 1,900 700 250 150 0 Area of Ramsar site within area 1,900 700 250 150 0 (ha): Area of World Heritage Site within <50 <50 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 8,700 1,550 350 350 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within 300 <50 <50 <50 <50 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient 1,050 <50 <50 <50 <50 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 790 40 40 30 0 area: Number of Licensed water 60 10 <10 <10 0 abstractions within the area:

Over 7,000 people are at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea in the South West Lakes Catchment, representing approximately 4% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 1600 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea in the South West Lakes catchment. Approximately 11% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Approximately 25% of SSSI sites and 59% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area.

44 of 139 Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 13 Reservoir flood risk extents in the South West Lakes catchment.

Table 7 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the South West Lakes Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 172,800 19,200 Number of services: 330 20

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 20,050 1,400 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 110 <10 Length of railway (km): 100 10 Agricultural land (ha): 21,250 550

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 2 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 16 1 Area of SAC within area (ha): 6,700 100

45 of 139 Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Area of SPA within area (ha): 1,900 150 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 1,900 150 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): <50 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 8,700 150 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 300 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): 1,050 <50 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 790 80 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 60 <10

Over 19,000 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the South West Lakes Catchment, representing approximately 11 % of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 1,400 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the South West Lakes catchment. Approximately 2.6% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Reservoirs. Approximately 1.8% of SSSI sites and 6.9% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area. Conclusions for the South West Lakes Catchment The South West Lakes Catchment contains some of the highest number of rivers and streams in England and is amongst the wettest and steepest sloped in England and Wales The main land use within the catchment is agricultural. Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources; rivers, the sea, surface water, ordinary watercourses, sewers and reservoirs. There are more than 7,000 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets out the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the SMP may be reasonable or conservative. The Environment Agency is looking to promote a flood risk management scheme to address the flooding in Egremont from Skirting Beck. The Environment Agency will continue to work closely with Copeland Borough Council to seek opportunities for partnership funding. Significant flooding occurred in December 2015, when heavy rainfall from Storm Desmond fell on already saturated ground across the North West. The South West Lake catchments were affected by the extremities of Storm Desmond but none of these catchments recorded the highest on record. The December 2015 flooding affected many communities throughout Cumbria and in these catchments surface water flooding and many areas of farmland affected including property flooding at Rosthwaite in the River Duddon catchment with 3 homes flooded. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes investigation of flood events across Risk Management Authorities to understand flood mechanisms and the establishing of the new Cumbrian Floods Partnership Group. This group will consider what improvements to flood defences in the region may be needed, look at upstream options for slowing key rivers to reduce the intensity of water flows at peak times and build stronger links between local residents, community groups and flood defence planning. The group will be chaired by the Floods Minister and made up of local authorities,

46 of 139 the Environment Agency, community groups and partner organisations (e.g. rivers trusts, national parks, United Utilities etc). The group will publish a Cumbria Action Plan in the summer of 2016. Economic growth and development based around the nuclear industry could present funding opportunities if complimentary options can be identified to reduce flood risk and allow development, especially given the need to ensure a very high standard of flood protection for such infrastructure. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to identify locations and solutions. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part A is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. Flood risk from ‘local sources’ and sewers is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary, or in others. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the South West Lakes Catchment Across the South West Lakes Catchment there are 31 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: 2 measures  A study is required to focus on the combined risk in Whitehaven from flooding from Pow Beck, minor watercourses, drains, surface water and groundwater. This study should also include flooding from high tides.  Develop adaptation strategy for properties on beach in Braystones, Nethertown and Coulderton areas to facilitate relocation to a more sustainable site in the moderate term. Preparing for risk: 18 measures  Improve flood warning and flood forecasting services including education required for people to take effective action. Take up of flood warning service could be improved from 8% at present.  Plans for implementing an additional Flood Warning Area at Braystones Village but not for Beckermet

47 of 139  Consult Eskmeals site operator over approaches to coastal adaptation in Moderate and long term to allow roll back of facilities in dunes  Undertake a feasibility study for defence improvement works at Seascale, to confirm if works are justified and appropriate timing of interventions.  Network Rail to develop a strategic plan for monitoring and managing risks to the railway infrastructure to inform requirements for works and next revision to SMP. Protecting from risk: 11 measures  Implement short term limited intervention at Earnse Point Groyne and West Shore Park and update of strategy, develop Project Appraisal Report for managing coastal risk and others identified areas of Walney Island  Encourage the use of flood resilience and flood proofing to existing properties in Harrington through the provision of information and seek appropriate opportunities for funding this measure  A study at Nor Beck has been completed which recommends increasing the capacity of the culvert at Cleator along with upstream storage to reduce the risk of flooding from Nor Beck  A pre-feasibility study at Agreement has been completed which recommends improvements to Skirting Beck culvert and improving defences in the Bridge End Area.  A pre-feasibility study for Poaka Beck recommended a detailed assessment of a potential scheme. This could include: flood storage, improving existing local defences or constructing new ones and/or increasing flow capacity of culverts and defences Recovery and review of risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD. .

48 of 139 3.3 The Kent and Leven Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Kent and Leven catchment is within south Cumbria, in the North West of England, and covers an area of 1,104 km2. It has three significant river systems (the Kent, Leven and Crake) which drain the southern fells of the Lake District into Morecambe Bay. Four other rivers (the Winster, Gilpin, Bela and River Eea) drain lower-lying land into Morecambe Bay. Finally, several small coastal rivers (Dragley Beck, Skelwith Pool, Rusland Pool) drain the southern coastal fringe of the area. The Kent, Leven and Crake rise south and east of the central Lake District massif. They drain smaller areas than other major rivers in the region such as the Derwent to the North West (663 km2), Eden to the north (2,286 km2) and Lune to the east (994 km2). All receive a great deal of rainfall. This combined with the impermeable underlying geology and thin upland soils, combines to produce large amounts of runoff. The main risk areas on these rivers are Kendal, Burneside and Staveley (on the Kent), Coniston (on Yewdale Beck), Ambleside and Grasmere (on the Rothay), Windermere (on Mill Beck) and Troutbeck Bridge (on Trout Beck). The other sizeable risk area is Ulverston where Town Beck and the coastal Dragley Beck river systems present some flood risk. The area is bounded to the south by Morecambe Bay, to the west and the north by the Lake District high fells, and to the east by the Bela watershed. About two-thirds of the area lies in the Lake District National Park.

Figure 14 Overview map of the Kent and Leven catchment

49 of 139

Land Use and Management The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) is a method introduced in 1966 for assessing the quality of land, based on its long term physical limitations for agricultural use. Land is given a grade from 1 to 5, where 1 is excellent and 5 very poor, determined by climate, site and soil factors. Land in this area is of very poor to moderate agricultural quality. Soil fertility is worst in the north but slightly better in the south and at lower altitudes. The northern part of the area, overlying igneous rocks, has acid, peaty and infertile soils which support only poor grazing. In the Kent and Leven catchment area most of the agricultural land is classified as “poor” on the ALC system. Most of the area is classified (by Defra) as a severely disadvantaged less favoured area, because the soils are generally too poor, and the relief too steep, for crops. The landscape of the Kent and Leven catchment area has been modified and managed by man for many thousands of years, since native forests were cleared to provide grazing for livestock. Historic management for farming and forestry has resulted in the landscape pattern characteristic of the area today, with heather moorland on the fells and lush, improved fields in the valley bottoms. It is important for the tourism-based economy that the appearance of this landscape is conserved and enhanced. Today, land in the catchment is managed for a variety of purposes. Much of it is still farmed for livestock (particularly sheep), and this may include improved grassland, neutral and acid grass, and heath. More than half of the area (56%) is covered by grassland of various types, and some 13% is managed as woodland or for forestry. Less than 10% is under arable cultivation. The Lyth valley, in the south of the catchment, is unusual in Cumbria. It has a comprehensive system of pump-assisted drainage to reduce flooding of pasture in late autumn, winter and early spring, so it is dry enough to support grazing. The Environment Agency currently maintain the drainage system under permissive powers. If pumping were to cease in this valley, there would be a dramatic change in soil wetness and subsequently in the flora, fauna and agricultural productivity. Geology The rocks of the Lake District record 500 million years of geological changes and are a controlling influence on the hydrology of the area. The oldest are the Skiddaw slates, formed when sand and mud were deposited at the bottom of an ocean 500 million years ago. The central high fells of the Lake District are an ancient volcanic dome which erupted some 50 million years later, solidifying into Borrowdale Volcanic rock and granite. A long period followed when different types of sediment were deposited on top of the volcanic rock, eventually forming limestone, sandstone and coal. Volcanic and sedimentary rocks were then eroded into valleys by the glaciers of the last ice age (about 25,000 years ago) to form the present landscape. The highest parts of the area, in the North West, are underlain by igneous volcanic rocks, with adjacent bands of sandstones, conglomerate and limestone. Most of the area has shaly Silurian limestone geology, while the southern coast has areas of Carboniferous rocks, and smaller areas of sandstone, mudstone and limestone. Drift deposits from the last ice age are concentrated in the valleys and are mostly glacial till or clay. On the fells deposits are peaty and thin, or non-existent. Superficial deposits in valleys provide a ready supply of sediment to the rivers of the area. Near Kendal, and in a few other isolated areas there are deposits of sand and gravel. Excepting two minor aquifers of Permian and Triassic Sandstone in the south of the area, these catchments are essentially impermeable. The landscape formed by this geology is spectacularly steep in the north, and fairly steep in the south. The combination of impermeable rocks, thin soils and steep topography produces high percentage runoff, occurring rapidly after rainfall. Thus geology and topography are both strong influences on the flood generating capacity of the Kent and Leven area rivers.

50 of 139 National and International Designations Two thirds of this area is within the Lake District National Park, and it contains one Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Arnside and Silverdale. Arnside and Silverdale AONB straddles the border of Cumbria and Lancashire. It covers the southern shore of the Kent Estuary, small scale limestone hills, deciduous woodland, valleys with sheltered agricultural land, saltmarshes, and mosses. Morecambe Bay is of international nature conservation importance, and is designated a Special Protection Area, marine Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site, as well as being a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These designations recognise the international importance of the estuary to waterfowl. The catchment also contains eight other Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), including the Morecambe Bay limestone pavements, North Pennine Dales Meadows and the River Kent itself. The area also has 78 Sites of Special Scientific Interest. These include varied habitats such as wetlands, cave systems, woodlands, meadows, mires, quarries, and limestone pavements. The River Kent itself has this designation, primarily for its indigenous White Clawed Crayfish and Pearl Mussel populations, and is therefore particularly sensitive to flood management policies. The area also contains seven National Nature Reserves (NNRs) including some which are also designated SSSIs. The area has a number of locally important sites, including Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, and around 600 County Wildlife Sites (CWS). There are also 675 Ancient Woodland Sites. Partnership Working Within the Catchment, Flood Risk Management Authorities have developed good working relationships with each other and other interested parties. United Utilities (UU) are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues with the Kent and Leven catchment. Working between Risk Management Authorities is helped by the presence of the existing Making Space for Water Group (MSFWG). Each District council in Cumbria has a MSFWG which is made up of representatives of the LLFA, Environment Agency, District council, UU and Highways England. This group works to resolve minor flood risk issues that require joint working in any particular district. Highways England intend to carry out works at 4sites on the A590 in Cumbria to protect the carriageway from flooding and keep the road open to traffic. These works represent trunk road flood resilience works identified as a requirement of the Pitt report. Linking with the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Kent and Leven Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme; catchment level government funded improvements; For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential. Examples of funded measures identified in the NW RBMP that will deliver WFD improvements in this catchment include water company investment to deliver water quality improvements in Windermere, Blelham Tarn and Elter Water.

51 of 139 Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected].

Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 15 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Kent and Leven catchment.

52 of 139 Table 8 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Kent and Leven Catchment River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 116,150 1,850 3,950 4,600 0 Number of services: 360 10 20 30 0

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 25,800 800 1,100 1,550 0 Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 210 <10 <10 10 0 Length of railway (km): 70 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 19,400 2,300 2,400 1,300 <10

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 2 2 0 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations within 11 3 2 1 0 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 7000 1,600 300 150 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 2,400 1,550 200 100 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 2,550 1,650 200 100 0 Area of World Heritage Site within 0 0 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 10,850 1,850 350 200 0 Area of Parks and Gardens within 400 50 <50 <50 <50 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient 200 <50 <50 <50 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 1780 90 60 120 0 area: Number of Licensed water 150 40 <10 10 0 abstractions within the area:

Over 10,000 people are at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea in the Kent and Leven Catchment, representing approximately 9% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 3,400 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea in the Kent and Leven catchment. Approximately 30% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea. Approximately 22 % of SSSI sites and 77% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area.

53 of 139 Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 16 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Kent and Leven catchment.

Table 9 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Kent and Leven Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 116,150 3,800 Number of services: 360 30

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 25,800 1000 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 210 <10 Length of railway (km): 70 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 19,400 900

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 2 1 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 11 2 Area of SAC within area (ha): 7000 150

54 of 139 Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Area of SPA within area (ha): 2,400 100 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 2,550 100 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 10,850 150 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 400 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): 200 <50 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 1,780 60 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 150 30

Over 3,800 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Kent and Leven Catchment, representing approximately 3% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 1000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Kent and Leven catchment. Approximately 30% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Reservoirs. Approximately 1% of SSSI sites and 3% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area. Conclusions for the Kent and Leven Catchment The Kent Leven Catchment covers a large and varied area both in terms of topography and land use. These catchments are mountainous in their upper reaches but drop down into narrow coastal plains with large estuaries running into Morecambe Bay. Land use is dominated by agriculture, from hill sheep grazing in the uplands to dairy farming on the valley bottoms, they are sparsely populated but do have larger centres of population. These catchments have a strong tourism sector. Watercourses across the catchment have a variety of uses from recreation to water supply and land drainage. Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources; rivers, the sea, surface water, ordinary watercourses, reservoirs and sewers. There are more than 10,400 people and 3,400 non- residential properties at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The landscape formed by this geology is spectacularly steep in the north, and fairly steep in the south. The combination of impermeable rocks, thin soils and steep topography produces high percentage runoff, occurring rapidly after rainfall. The Kent and Leven catchments both have numerous area of flood risk. The towns of Kendal and Ulverston have the greatest flood risk and have suffered from extensive fluvial flooding historically. Many small towns and villages across the catchment also suffer from flooding as a result of the topography, high rainfall and historic structures and channel constrictions. Locations which have experienced recent flooding include Coniston, Grasmere, Grange Over Sands, Dalton in Furness, Windermere and Ambleside. These locations are vulnerable to flooding from rivers, small streams, surface water and sewer flooding. High lake levels can cause flooding problems at Coniston, Windermere and Ambleside. The coastal communities of Arnside, Sandside, Cark, Greenodd and settlements along the A5087 coast road have experienced tidal flooding in the recent past during very high tides and storm surges. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the SMP may be reasonable or conservative. The town of Kendal has a flood alleviation scheme based on conveyance improvements through the town, the standard of protection is believed to be approximately 1in 70 years or a 1.4% chance

55 of 139 of flooding in any given year. Other locations such as Ulverston, Dalton In Furness and Grasmere have areas that are protected by flood alleviation works but no comprehensive schemes to protect the whole town or settlement. Flooding of small communities across the catchment may lend themselves to a property level protection approach. The rural nature of many of the catchments may also lend themselves to the catchment based approach to flood management. Significant flooding occurred in December 2015, when heavy rainfall from Storm Desmond fell on already saturated ground across the North West. The Kent and Leven catchment received 225mm of rain in a 36 hour period during the flood event recorded at the rain gauge at Kentmere. The storm event was estimated to have a return period of 1 in 200 (0.5%) chance of occurring in any given year. At Sedgwick, the River Kent peaked at 4.276m at 9.15am on Saturday 05 December 2015. The previous highest recorded was 3.094m. The December 2015 flooding affected communities including Kendal, Burneside, Staveley, Ambleside and Grasmere in this catchment with circa 2,150 homes and businesses flooded. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes a review of the future Kendal Scheme options to develop a scheme that protects the far greater number of properties affected by this event; looking to secure funding to deliver a new flood risk management scheme for Burneside and surrounding areas over the next 2-3 years, subject to all necessary approval and funding being in place; asset inspection and repair, community engagement, and, investigation of flood events by relevant Risk Management Authorities to understand flood mechanisms and the establishing of the new Cumbria Floods Partnership Group. This group will consider what improvements to flood defences in the region may be needed, look at upstream options for slowing key rivers to reduce the intensity of water flows at peak times and build stronger links between local residents, community groups and flood defence planning. The group will be chaired by the Floods Minister and made up of local authorities, the Environment Agency, community groups and partner organisations (e.g. rivers trusts, national parks, United Utilities etc). The group will publish a Cumbria Action Plan in the summer of 2016. Historically the Lyth Valley, to the west of Kendal, was an area of low lying land which was subject to fluvial and tidal flooding. In the late ’70s and early ‘80s a pumped drainage scheme was constructed in order to make the land more suitable for agriculture. The Environment Agency has maintained and operated this pumped drainage scheme since then but is currently undertaking a process which will mean that it will no longer carry out this work. There is very limited flood risk to properties in the Lyth Valley and Environment Agency expenditure is disproportionately high. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part A is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. Flood risk from ‘local sources’ and sewers is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary, or in others. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the

56 of 139 principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Kent and Leven Catchment Across the Kent and Leven Catchment there are 39 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk 8 measures  Review effectiveness of current flood risk management works, including gravel extraction. This should investigate what improvements might be required in order to maintain the standard of protection offered and assess impact of gravel deposition on channel conveyance in Grasmere and Ambleside. Review of maintenance activities currently undertaken through the policy unit.  The Flood Warning Plan for South Lakes (2004) made no reference to the provision of a flood warning in Windermere. Given technological advances and improved rain and river level gauge coverage in the future, the provision of warnings may become feasible in the future and flood warning areas created.  Review effectiveness of current flood risk management works, including gravel extractions with the intention of seeing reduced maintenance activities across the policy unit  Review effectiveness of current flood risk management works, including gravel extraction. In urban areas this should look at what is required to keep the current level of protection offered (likely to decrease over time). In rural areas the level of maintenance and standard of protection offered may be reduced. Review of maintenance activities on lowland rural watercourses and defences along rivers such as the Winster, the Eea and watercourses in the vicinity of WLMP sites. Preparing for risk: 20 measures  Undertake a detailed Habitats Regulations Assessment at strategy or scheme level in consultation with Natural England, including quantification of losses and gains of internationally designated habitats.  Undertake studies & consultation to investigate managed realignment viability and associated affects on the Leven Estuary and adjacent bay and infrastructure such as the Leven Viaduct, to inform policy delivery and develop a long term strategy, including a more detailed Habitats Regulations Assessment. Confirm preferred technical approach, extents of managed realignments, potential for habitat gains and losses and inform RHCP.  Flood warning service for Ulverston: Review the need and potential introduction of a flood warning service for Ulverston  Investigation of the feasibility of flood warning services in rapidly responding catchments including education required for people to make their own properties more resilient to flooding (including evacuation plans at camp sites such as Langdale)  Whilst the FWMP identified Staveley and Ings on the River Gowan, Miller Beck in Newby Bridge and Holme Beck in Holme as being locations where the provision of a flood warning was technically unfeasible things might change in the future as the network of rain and river level gauges expands Protecting from risk: 11 measures  Consider viability of potential habitat creation scheme behind Holme Island, potentially including a regulated tidal exchange scheme, to help offset potential coastal habitat losses due to defences in this area or the rest of Morecambe bay in the long term. Confirm extent

57 of 139 of managed realignment area, habitat gains by type and preferred approach and inform RHCP.  Develop adaptation strategy to facilitate future local flood or erosion risk protection or resilience work to isolated properties including Leyhey Lane, Baycliff if justified  Develop business case for Flood Alleviation Scheme in Grange Over Sands  Following on from a review into effectiveness of current flood risk management works in the Lyth Valley the EA in partnership with the NFU are exploring various options for Land drainage and pumping station operation. One such option is to establish two new Internal Drainage Boards for the Lyth Valley and Waver Wampool who will take over the operation of the pumping stations from the Environment Agency.  Reduce surface water flood risk in Ulverston: Deliver currently proposed surface water management schemes in the 6 year Medium Term Plan include: Ulverston Urban Drainage Scheme, North Lonsdale Terrace, Ulverston,Troutbeck Bridge.

Recovery and review of risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

58 of 139 3.4 The Lune Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The catchment covers 1297km2 of North West England, extending from Sedbergh in the North to Piling and Lancaster in the South. The principle river in the catchment is the Lune and its tributaries. The Lune rises in the Howgill Fells to the north, flowing west to Tebay and southwest into Morcambe Bay where it drains to the Irish Sea. The other principal sub-catchments within the area are the River Keer, River Conder and Pilling Water catchments, each of which also drains separately into the Irish Sea. The lower reaches of the River Lune, River Conder and River Keer are directly influenced by tides, whereas Pilling Water and the River Cocker (another Main River within the Pilling Water sub-catchment) are protected from direct tidal influence by coastal defences, sluice/flap gates and a pumping station. The total length of Main Rivers draining the catchment is 396km. Land Use and Management

Figure 17 Overview map of the Lune catchment The upper and middle reaches of the catchment are predominantly rural, whilst the lower reaches are more urban and industrial. Historically, the catchment has been used for livestock grazing. In upland areas, the intensification of farming has changed the landscape, with woodland cover and scrub vegetation being replaced by meadow land including bracken and grasses. This change, combined with soil compaction from livestock has led to reduced infiltration and increased surface run-off. However, as a result of the Foot and Mouth Disease and adapting to reforms of the common Agricultural Policy 2003, intensification is a less acute concern. Land drainage works have been undertaken to improve agricultural productivity in the low-lying land of the Pilling Water sub-catchment, which was historically susceptible to waterlogging and flooding. Land drainage can increase soil moisture deficits by lowering the water levels within the 59 of 139 soils. This will increase the water storage capacity of the soils and may have an influence in drier periods, providing increased protection from storm events during these times. The main population is concentrated towards the coast and future development is likely to be concentrated within the large existing coastal settlements of Lancaster, Heysham and Morecambe. Several small towns are present throughout the catchment, including Sedbergh, Kirkby Lonsdale, Ingleton and High Bentham. The river and coast in this area are important to the local economy attracting tourists, particularly at Morecambe. Significant transport routes which pass through the catchments include the M6 and several major A roads, and the West Coast Main Line railway route from London to Glasgow. The Port of Heysham is also an important transport hub. Geology Upland areas to the north and east of the catchment are broadly underlain by Carboniferous limestone, slates and grits. Groundwater movement in limestone results in rapid run-off and slate is effectively impermeable. Low-lying areas to the south and west are underlain by sandstone, which is more permeable. The geology therefore contributes to more rapid run-off in the upper catchment and slower run-off in the lower catchment. National and International Designations Morecambe Bay is the largest expanse of intertidal mudflats in the UK. It is an important wildlife area, a designated Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site, as well as being a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Notable designated sites include Ingleborough National Nature Reserve as well as several Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The Lake District National Park which is the largest of England’s National Parks, and Yorkshire Dales National Park which has outstanding scenery and a rich cultural heritage, both cover parts of the upper catchment. The Forest of Bowland Outstanding Area of Natural Beauty (AONB), known for its unspoiled and richly diverse landscapes, and Arnside and Silverdale AONB which sustains a complex mosaic of habitats, also fall within the catchment. Partnership Working Within the Lune Catchment, Risk Management Authorities have developed a good working relationship with partners. The catchment is covered by five local councils; Craven District Council, Eden District Council, Lancaster District Council, South Lakeland District Council and Wyre District Council. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within the Lune catchment. In addition to those partners mentioned the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England work in partnership to address flood risk. Linking with the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Lune Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme; catchment level government funded improvements; For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential.

60 of 139 Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected].

Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 18 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Lune catchment.

61 of 139 Table 10 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Lune Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 164,250 900 1,250 16,150 <50

Number of services: 450 10 10 40 0

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential 27,550 550 750 3,250 <50 properties: Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0

Length of roads (km): 180 <10 <10 <10 <10

Length of railway (km): 110 <10 <10 <10 0

Agricultural land (ha): 33,350 2,500 1,600 6,000 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 1 1 0 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations within 23 2 4 6 0 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 9,200 1,900 150 150 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 5,850 1,900 150 150 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 2,200 1,900 150 150 0 Area of World Heritage Site within 0 0 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 19,650 1,950 250 250 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within 100 <50 <50 <50 0 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient 200 <50 <50 <50 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 2,310 140 40 120 0 area: Number of Licensed water 80 20 <10 <10 0 abstractions within the area:

Around 18,000 people are at risk of flooding from Rivers and the sea in the Lune Catchment, representing approximately 11% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 4,500 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding in the Lune catchment. Approximately 30% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea. Approximately 12% of SSSI sites are at risk of flooding in the area. There are no airports at risk of flooding in the catchment.

62 of 139 Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 19 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Lune catchment.

Table 11 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Lune Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 164,250 1,250 Number of services: 450 <10

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 27,550 200 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 180 <10 Length of railway (km): 110 0 Agricultural land (ha): 33,350 600

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 1 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 23 0 Area of SAC within area (ha): 9,200 <50 Area of SPA within area (ha): 5,850 <50

63 of 139 Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 2,200 <50 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 19,650 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 100 0 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): 200 0 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 2,310 40 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 80 <10

1,200 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs, equating to less than 1% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 200 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Lune catchment. Approximately 2% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from reservoirs.

Conclusions for the Lune Catchment The Lune Catchment covers a mix of urban and rural areas, with different land uses, population densities and types of watercourse. Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources; rivers, the sea, surface water, ordinary watercourses, groundwater, sewers and reservoirs. There are more than 18,000 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The Lune has 4 principal sub catchments: The River Lune and its tributaries, River Keer, River Conder, and Pilling Water. There is flood risk to people along the River Wenning: Clapham, High and Low Bentham, Wennington, Wray and Hornby are at risk. Halton in the Lower Lune has significant potential risk to people and property. Other fluvial flood risk areas are Galgate (River Conder) and Carnforth (River Keer). Lancaster, Glasson, Morecambe and Heysham are at risk of tidal flooding. To manage flood risk embankments have been constructed along the River Wenning, tidal defences at Glasson, Morecambe, Heysham, and Lancaster have also been constructed. Raised defences have been constructed alongside St Georges Quay and New Quay Road in Lancaster to provide protection from flooding from both fluvial and tidal sources. Raised defences have been put in place in Galgate. The Environment Agency undertake a risk-based approach programme of inspection and maintenance of rivers and defences. Flooding occurred in January 1995 when channel capacity was exceeded in Lancaster, Skerton Weir and the surrounding areas were also affected. Flooding also occurred in February 2002 to St Georges Quay. Significant flooding occurred in December 2015 in the Lune catchment caused by storms Desmond and Eva when heavy rainfall fell on already saturated ground across the North West. The Lune catchment received a months worth of rainfall on the 4th and 5th of December alone. The storm event was estimated to have a return period of 1 in 200 (0.5%) chance of occurring in any given year (this data is taken from the gauging station at Skerton, the return period information is likely to be revised but is correct as at January 2016). At Caton, the River Lune peaked at 7.948m on the 6th December, which is the highest on record. Storm Desmond caused the highest flow ever recorded in an English river, in the River Lune. The December 2015 flooding affected communities including Lancaster, Halton, Carnforth, Morecambe, Warton, Slyne and Tunstall, in this catchment with circa 1,000 homes and businesses flooded. It is estimated that in Lancaster alone over 7,000 businesses were affected by the flooding and power loss. Highest flows since records began were recorded on the River Lune which led to the Lune overtopping its banks and flooding properties and businesses. Surface water flooding also affected the city centre.

64 of 139 Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes a review of the options for the communities affected. Drop in sessions have been held to understand the sources of flooding and impacts on those communities. Future work will look at options for Lancaster to develop a scheme that protects a greater number of properties affected by this event. All measures for the Lune catchment are contained in Part C. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the SMP may be reasonable or conservative. Economic growth and development in Lancaster (north and south) could present funding opportunities if complimentary options can be identified to reduce flood risk and allow development. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to identify locations and solutions. Further investment in the area may be stimulated as a result of the construction of the Heysham M6 Link Road. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. Flood risk from ‘local sources’ and sewers is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary, or in others. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Lune Catchment Across the Lune Catchment there are 39 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: 1 Measure  Develop a planning policy to allow roll-back of caravan parks on eroding cliffs in order to manage the erosion risk and adapt to the changing coast. Requires consultation between planning authority and property owners. Preparing for risk: 13 Measures  Investigate the provision of emergency plans for residents of at-risk properties, for tourist staying in flood risk hotspots and at campsites such as in Ingleton, Caton, and Rawthey Valley.

65 of 139  Create new Flood Warning Area and consider promoting a self-help approach for properties within the current and future Keer floodplain.  In conjunction with other Policy Areas in Morecambe Bay, and in consultation with Natural England, quantify coastal squeeze losses and gains of intertidal habitat within and adjacent to the internationally designated sites, taking account of SMP policies.  Review risks and investigate opportunities to set back the defence lines in the medium term. Include investigation into the extent, nature and condition of the Pasture Lane Landfill site if a habitat creation opportunity is identified for the medium to long term. Confirm extent of managed realignment area, habitat gains by type and preferred technical approach to realignment.  Consider needs for coastal adaptation and roll-back of assets at caravan sites and resilience or local property flood defences at isolated properties affected by no active intervention or managed realignment. Protecting from risk: 25 Measures  Undertake a pre-feasibility study for a new flood defence scheme along Jenkin Beck, in Ingleton. This will look at the options of reducing flood risk and damages 30 properties in Ingleton. An environmental study should be carried out to assess the impact on any species or habitats as a result of new defences.  From 2020 onwards, investigate the feasibility of setting-back defences from the River Keer to the village of Warton. Agricultural land currently behind the defences could be allowed to flood and given over to habitat restoration. An environmental study should be carried out to assess the impact on any species or habitats as a result of setting back defences.  Lower Lancaster, Skerton/Halton - Low lying industrial estate that has been subject to inundation in 1995 & continues to be at risk. Scheme seeks to improve by raising existing flood banks or constructing new flood walling.  River Conder at Galgate - A 1km reach of river defences at Galgate protecting 150 properties is deteriorating. A Flood Risk Reduction Feasibility Report was produced in February 2010 By Jacobs that highlights the risk of wall failure is greater than previously thought. Urgent repairs carried out in 10/11 to give max 5 yrs before further works needed. The scheme would involve replacement of these defences to current standards.  Promote natural methods of managing flood risk and improving water quality and habitats at identified locations in the Lune catchment: Investigate potential collaborative work for: blocking of grips/gullies on peat moorland, including Whernside SSSI, Ingleborough SSSI and other areas, gill planting, including on the River Rawthey, River Wenning. Riparian woodland in the middle and lower stretches of tributaries of the River Wenning and River Greta investigation of meander creation and floodplain restoration on the River Lune near Newbiggin-on-Lune. Recovery and review of risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

66 of 139 3.5 The Wyre Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Wyre catchment is situated on the West Coast between the Ribble and Lune areas. The Wyre flows in a general East to West direction and passes through Poulton-le-Fylde, Thornton Cleveleys and Fleetwood before entering the Irish Sea at Morecambe Bay. The River is approximately 62 km in length. The drainage area of the Wyre River and its tributaries is similar in size (440 km2) to the Douglas catchment (460 km2). Of the 440 km2 catchment area, 167 km2 is within the normal tidal limit. Within this drainage area there is an average rainfall of 1,200mm; which is slightly above the national average of 1,060mm, 1964-1991. The catchment rises in the Bowland Fells which have a high gradient (greater than 1 in 100). Combined with the geology and soils in the area, this results in river levels being very sensitive to rainfall; some such catchments are designated rapid response catchments. The soils tend to be silt-clay with some sand. Compaction by agricultural use makes the soils somewhat impermeable, producing a quicker response time of the catchment. The River Wyre supports both coarse and game fisheries. Water related recreation is important, especially in places such as Blackpool’s “Golden Mile” beachfront, Lancaster Canal and numerous footpaths and bridleways. Yachting and other water-sports are also popular in the Wyre Estuary. Both the Fylde aquifer and surface waters supply drinking water.

Figure 20 Overview map of the Wyre catchment

67 of 139

Land Use and Management The Wyre Catchment area is relatively rural. Urban development accounts for approximately 10% of the land use. This development tends to be concentrated along the estuary and the sea front, extending from the coastal towns of Knott End and Fleetwood in the north through to Blackpool in the south. The remainder of the catchment is dotted with small villages, hamlets and isolated farms. This level of urban development can have an impact on the flood risk, as it increases the area of impermeable land, increasing the rate of drainage into the river channels. Within the Wyre catchment, the distribution of urban areas presents a significant challenge as they are generally located within the main fluvial and tidal flood plain areas. A further challenge is presented by recent and future developments planned for the catchment. The Thornton-Cleveleys to Fleetwood corridor adjacent to the estuary has been identified as a key development area within Wyre Borough Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). Such future development has the potential to conflict with flood risk management, and should be undertaken in a sustainable manner in order to alleviate added flood risk. Due to the landscape, the catchment in turn supports tourism and recreation in addition to the traditional seaside resorts of Blackpool, Cleveleys, and Fleetwood. The Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in the east of the catchment supports a number of walks and trails such as the Brock Valley Nature Trail and Beacon Fell Trails. There are also a number of cycle trails in the AONB, such as the Lancashire Cycleway. Angling is also of importance in the catchment area, and takes place in a large number of fishing lakes such as those located between Dolphinholme and Scorton, in the upper catchment as well as on the coast. Seaside tourism has declined in recent decades, although it still forms an important part of the local economy and visitor numbers swell the population of towns such as Blackpool and Cleveleys during the summer months. The re-building of sea defences in Cleveleys and Blackpool, together with regeneration of the towns over time, is hoped to gradually reverse this trend, and also attract additional investment and employment opportunities. There are a number of cultural and tourist attractions in the Wyre catchment, including museums such as Fleetwood Museum and Fylde Country Life Museum, as well as Marsh Mill, “Europe’s tallest windmill”. Sports centres, football clubs, and golfing facilities are all also to be found throughout the catchment area, with the highest concentration in the urban areas of the west of the catchment. Geology The geology of the headwaters is mainly Millstone Grit Series in the northern part and Limestone Series further south around the headwaters of the Brock catchment. The Millstone Grit is often exposed in the fells, however there is notable peat coverage on hilltops above an elevation of 400 metres. Water flowing off the hills has cut deep valleys into the fells. The mid-level of the catchment is characterised by Permian Sandstone and overlain by boulder clay with some glacial gravel and sands. Following this, the lower level of the catchment is underlain by mudstone, although this has been masked by glacial and post glacial deposits of sand, clay and marine alluvium. A few peat deposits have developed in the low lying land in the Fylde plain. The sandstone in the mid-catchment level acts as a primary aquifer for the catchment. Abstraction of this takes place mainly for public water supply under the Lancashire Conjunctive User Scheme (LCUS). Abstraction is restricted during prolonged low flows to ensure recharge of the river channel is maintained during dry periods. However, in the areas predominantly covered by clay, the soils are effectively impermeable. This leads to rainfall developing into run-off quickly and prevents the discharge/recharge of the aquifers. National and International Designations The Wyre catchment contains a number of environmentally designated sites and historical monuments which present both opportunities and constraints to flood risk management. Part of the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is located in the north of the Wyre Catchment. There are sections of the coast identified as part of the Morecambe Bay Ramsar designation. There are no National Nature Reserves (NNRs) or National Parks in the catchment.

68 of 139 In terms of heritage, there are 9 Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM) within the catchment with the majority distributed in the east of the catchment. There are also 6 Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSI) within the Wyre catchment. These are:  Bowland Fells located in the north east of the catchment  Lune Estuary which included the coastline north east of Knott End  Marton Mere located south west of Staining  Rough Hey Wood which is east of Catterall  Tarnbrook Meadows north east of Abbeystead  Wyre Estuary the River Wyre downstream of Windy Harbour Partnership Working Within the Wyre catchment, Risk Management Authorities are working alongside a number of partners. The catchment is covered by a number of local authorities: Blackpool, Wyre, Fylde, Preston and Lancaster. Lancashire County Council and Blackpool Borough Council are Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs). United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues. In addition to this, there are a number of other partners who work closely with Risk Management Authorities including: National Farmers Union, Natural England, Marine Management Organisation, Lancashire Wildlife Trust, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, as well as having close links with the local farming communities. The Environment Agency also works closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. As the majority of the coast line within the Wyre catchment is defended, there is a strong focus on partnership working in order to provide coastal protection. The Wyre catchment covers the northern half of the Fylde peninsula and groups include: North West England and North Wales Coastal Group, Fylde Peninsula Water Management Group and Fylde Coastal Programme. The coastal authorities are Wyre Borough and Blackpool Borough Councils. Both Blackpool and Wyre are very active coastal authorities and have jointly produced strategies for the coastline. North West England and North Wales Coastal Group This group is responsible for managing the North West and the North Wales coastline in accordance with the SMP. The group includes the Coast Protection Authorities, Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage, Network Rail and other stakeholders who have an interest in the coast. The group meets quarterly. Fylde Peninsula Water Management Group This group manages the water management issues for the Fylde Peninsula with particular focus on the bathing water quality of coastal waters in summer and water quality in rivers generally. It consists of the Fylde Peninsula coast protection authorities, Lancashire Country Council, United Utilities and Environment Agency. The group meets monthly. The Environment Agency has worked closely with both Wyre and Blackpool councils to develop their coastal defence schemes. These include the schemes at Rossall, Fleetwood and Anchorsholme, Blackpool. There are also a number of individual communities within the Wyre area working with local flooding issues and solutions. In addition to the partners mentioned, RMAs also work closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England. The Fylde Peninsula Coastal Programme (FPCP) is a partnership between Wyre Borough Council, Blackpool Council, Fylde Borough Council, the Environment Agency, Lancashire County Council and United Utilities. The FPCP have appointed a main contractor to construct the £86million coastal defence schemes at Rossall and Anchorsholme, which will greatly reduce the risk of flooding to the local community. The Rossall scheme involves constructing two kilometres of

69 of 139 coastal defence from Rossall Hospital to Rossall Point, whereas at Anchorsholme, a one kilometre coastal sea wall will be constructed from Kingsway to Little Bispham (in north Blackpool). Linking with the River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Wyre Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme; catchment level government funded improvements; For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential. An example of funded measures identified in the NW RBMP that will deliver WFD improvements in this catchment is the water company investment to deliver water quality improvements in Barton Brook. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected].

70 of 139 Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 21 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Wyre catchment.

Table 12 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Wyre Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 217,550 100 2,300 55,350 <50 Number of services: 350 <10 10 70 0

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential 24,850 50 350 3,900 <50 properties: Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 100 0 <10 <10 0 Length of railway (km): 30 0 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 28,200 750 900 4,050 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 0 0 0 0 0 waters within 50m:

71 of 139 River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Number of EPR installations within 14 0 0 5 0 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 100 50 0 <50 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 6,000 200 <50 50 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 250 200 <50 50 0 Area of World Heritage Site within 0 0 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 6,050 250 <50 50 0 Area of Parks and Gardens within 100 <50 <50 <50 0 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient <50 0 0 0 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 500 20 <10 60 0 area: Number of Licensed water 80 10 <10 <10 0 abstractions within the area:

Around 57,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Wyre Catchment, representing approximately 26.5% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 4,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Wye catchment. Approximately 20% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Approximately 5% of SSSI sites and 99% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area. Tidal Flooding  The whole length of the Wyre catchment frontage is protected by defences, the main areas that could be affected by defence overtopping are central and north Blackpool, Cleveleys, Rossall and parts of Knott End  Tidal flooding also affects communities within the Wyre Estuary such as Thornton and Hambleton  New multi million pound coastal defences are currently being constructed at Rossall, Fleetwood and Anchorsholme (north Blackpool)  Rising sea levels mean that waves and the number of storm surges could increase. Changes to the currents acting on the coast could also lead to changes in the movement of coastal sediments, affecting both coastal deposition and erosion. This could expose new risks from coastal flooding, lead to a greater risk of coastal defences failing and increase the need for maintenance work on defences and more extensive warning systems. Fluvial flooding The main sources of fluvial flooding within the Wyre catchment are from:  Hillylaid Pool and Royles Brooks affecting Cleveleys and Thornton  the River Wyre and its tributaries in the middle of the catchment affecting St. Michaels, part of Great Eccleston, Churchtown, Bilsborrow and large areas of farm land with scattered hamlets and houses  Both the M6 and the West Coast main railway line cross the fluvial flood zone towards the upper reaches of the catchment.  There are 2 flood storage basins, one at Catterall and the other at Garstang which are used at times of high river levels

72 of 139  The climate is changing and this is likely to have an impact on flooding. Sea levels are rising and winter rainfall may become more intense. Changes in weather patterns and, in particular, more torrential rainfall is likely to increase flood risk from surface water and rivers. Communities within the Wyre catchment have experienced an increase in both severity and frequency of existing flooding problems and communities that have not flooded previously have been affected in recent years. It is likely that this pattern will continue.

Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 22 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Wyre catchment.

Table 13 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Wyre Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 217,550 9,800 Number of services: 350 20

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 24,850 1,000 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 100 10

73 of 139 Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Length of railway (km): 30 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 28,200 2,050

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 14 0 Area of SAC within area (ha): 100 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 6,000 <50 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 250 <50 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 6,050 50 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 100 0 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): <50 0 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 500 40 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 80 10

Around 9,800 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs, equating to just over 4.5% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 1000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Wyre catchment. Approximately 7.2% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Conclusions for the Wyre Catchment The Wyre Catchment covers a mix of urban and rural areas, with different land uses, population densities and types of watercourse. The population in the Wyre catchment is mainly concentrated in the coastal or estuary area (a large proportion of which lies within the flood zone) with several towns and villages located close to the river in the middle of the catchment. Over a quarter of the residents in the Wyre catchment are at some risk of flooding either fluvial or tidal. 55,000 people are at ‘low risk’ of flooding from the river and the sea. These people depend heavily on sea defences, raised defences and flood basins on the River Wyre. Whilst the likelihood of flooding is low, if any defences were to fail inundation of many properties could be rapid. Throughout the Wyre catchment, work is being carried out with communities to increase people’s awareness of the risk of flooding and the associated actions that they should take. The Environment Agency needs to continue to contribute to this by working with other partners. The importance of this work to improve and maintain the defences is demonstrated in that it reduces the likelihood of these communities flooding. Significant flooding occurred in December 2015 in the Wyre catchment caused by storms Desmond and Eva when heavy rainfall fell on already saturated ground across the North West. Parts of the Wyre catchment received four times the amount of rainfall it would normally receive in an average December and some parts of the catchment received a months’ worth of rainfall on the 4th and 5th of December alone. The gauge at Abbeystead Reservoir recorded 412.6mm for the whole of December with an average month normally receiving 134mm in an average December. The December storms were estimated to be events with a return period of between a 1 in 200 (0.5%) chance of occurring in any given year (this data is taken from several gauging stations in the Wyre catchment, the return period information is likely to be revised but is correct as at January 2016).

74 of 139 The December 2015 flooding affected communities such as St Michaels, Garstang and Churchtown in this catchment with circa 54 homes and businesses flooded. Flooding cut off small communities and affected businesses, livestock and infrastructure. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes a review of the options for the communities affected. Flood support officers have visited most of the affected communities. Assets are being reviewed and repaired and site visits and partnership working is ongoing to look at options for future working. Planned and current flood risk schemes are being reviewed which is likely to change some priorities within the 6 year investment programme. Local drop in sessions were held to understand the sources of flooding and impacts on those communities. Future work will look at options for these communities to develop schemes and flood action groups that protect a greater number of properties affected by this event. All measures for the Wyre catchment are contained in Part C. The Rossall Coast Protection Scheme is between Cleveleys and Fleetwood. There are approximately 7,500 properties at risk and the current standard of protection is estimated to be 1 in 50 and falling due to climate change. The residual life of the seawall is estimated to be approximately 8 years. It has been calculated that the defences are at a risk of breaching during a 1 in 75 year storm which would result in significant flooding of the low lying land behind the defences. There was major flooding at this location in 1927 and 1977 although flooding to the promenade does regularly occur due to wave overtopping during storms. The scheme includes the replacement of 2 km of hard sea wall defences to provide a 1:200 year standard of protection with a design life of 100 years. It will reduce the risk of flooding to the 7,500 residential properties, major highway infrastructure, sewage pumping station and public utilities. The improvements to the coastal defences include a new concrete sea wall and promenade with rock revetments and groynes. In the longer term to counter sea level rise beach nourishment and management is proposed. The estimated scheme cost is £64 million. Anchorsholme Coast Protection Scheme is located on the northern boundary of Blackpool. This part of the frontage is 1 km in length and approximately 4,800 properties benefit from the defences here. The current standard of protection offered by the sea wall is between 1 in 20 and 1 in 50 years and there is a 99% probability of it failing within the next 5 years. There was major flooding in 1927 and 1977 although flooding to the promenade, highway and tramway does occur approximately 5 times a year, which results in road closures. The scheme is to replace 1 km of hard sea wall defence to provide a 1 in 200 year standard of protection with a design life of 100 years. This coastal frontage is the final section of seawall within Blackpool Council’s capital programme and has been experiencing significant deterioration and undermining. Flooding would have an indirect damage to the tourism and recreation industries. The estimated scheme cost is £23 million. The Environment Agency has established a number of Flood Warning areas within the Wyre Catchment. The purpose of these areas is to provide as much warning as possible to communities of potential flooding. Some of the Flood Warning Areas are located on the coast and within the Wyre estuary and others are located further upstream in the middle of the Wyre Catchment. The coastal and estuary Flood Warning Area cover communities such as Little Bispham, Anchorsholme, Cleveleys, Rossall, Fleetwood, Thornton, Burn Naze, Skippool and Hambleton. The Flood Warning Areas higher in the catchment cover communities such as Scoton (where there is also a caravan park at risk of flooding), Garstang (where there is also a nursing home at risk of flooding), Chuchtown, St, Michaels (where the main bridge across the River Wyre is located, providing the most direct links to the upper catchment) and Great Eccleston. These Flood Warning Areas were used to warn communities in December 2015 of potential flooding. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the SMP may be reasonable or conservative.

75 of 139 Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. Flood risk from ‘local sources’ and sewers is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary, or in others. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Wyre Catchment Across the Wyre Catchment there are 23 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: 5 measures  Investigate further flood storage opportunities, setting back of existing embankments, and land management changes in the policy unit to sustain current flood risk in the Moderate to long term. This should be undertaken as part of a strategy to identify options to mitigate for future increase in flood risk within the middle and upper catchment.  Undertake a pre-feasibility study to assess the effectiveness of Abbeystead Reservoir to provide increased flood storage, in conjunction with the reservoir undertaker and reservoir supervising engineer. The study should determine from existing studies and reservoir records what the current and potential capacity is for flood storage, and how this can potentially attenuate flood flows from the outfall to the Wyre downstream of the reservoir. Consideration should be given to the installation of a monitoring device to monitor levels in the reservoir, in order to aid our understanding of the reservoir, and to improve flood forecasting procedures.  Adopt and implement coastal strategies developed in previous strategic plans. Preparing for risk: 15 measures  Undertake study to improve understanding of interaction between river flow and tide, and the impact on flood risk within the policy unit. The study should determine through the use of existing modelling, survey and historical information the current and future risk from combined fluvial and tidal events. This affects communities predominantly in St Michaels, Gt Eccleston and Ratten Row.  Improve flood contingency planning for the Thornton Cleveleys to Fleetwood area. This should focus on increasing the number of emergency plans for flood risk areas. It should also involve the formation of a local flood contingency planning group, incorporating the Environment Agency, emergency services, and local councils.

76 of 139  Undertake beach management studies for the whole frontage, including analysis of historical beach movements and investigation of options for long term beach management to mitigate beach erosion and improve the dune systems (Rossall Point to Fairhaven Lake) to develop beach management proposals  Monitor progress with dune restoration and improvement at Russell Point and link to dune habitat strand of Integrated Environment Programme work.  Investigate and quantify habitat losses and creation potential to feed into future work. Subsequently identify and secure intertidal and dune habitat where necessary to compensate for any habitat losses in each epoch. Protecting from risk: 3 measures  Undertake a Strategy study for the urban watercourses in the Thornton-Cleveleys area. The strategy should focus on investigating the feasibility of reducing fluvial flood risk, and should build on the Royles Brook and Hillylaid Pool PAR and Land Drainage strategy produced by Wyre Borough Council. Investigations should consider improvements to channel capacity and conveyance, in addition to identifying possible recreational and biodiversity benefits, and should also review the adequacy and operating regime for Stanah and Springfield pumping stations.  Improve modelling and fluvial flood mapping of the Thornton-Cleveleys area. This should focus particularly on the urban watercourses in the Thornton-Cleveleys area, where limited modelling study has taken place.  Undertake Pre-feasibility study to assess flood risk in Hambleton. The study should investigate the risk of fluvial flooding, and identify the viability of a potential future scheme. The study should consider the adequacy of the existing outfalls to Pegs Pool and Wardleys Pool. The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

77 of 139 3.6 The Ribble Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Ribble catchment drains an area of 1490km2 in North Yorkshire/Lancashire from Settle in the North to Preston and Blackburn in the South. The principal river in the catchment is the River Ribble, which rises in the Yorkshire Dales and flows south westwards towards the Ribble estuary downstream of Preston. The Ribble has three main tributaries; the River Hodder which drains much of the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the River Calder which flows through industrial east Lancashire towns and the River Darwen which joins the Ribble on the outskirts of Preston from the south. Other main watercourses include the coastal streams entering the northern shore of the Ribble estuary from the Lytham St Anne’s area and some western parts of Blackpool. One of these streams, Main Drain, is pumped; others drain into the Ribble estuary via tidal flapped outlets. The total length of Main Rivers draining the catchment is 445km.There are also three canal systems in the catchment, the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, the new Ribble Link Canal and a short section of the Lancaster Canal. Land Use and Management Most of the Ribble catchment is rural, with the majority of agricultural land being used for dairy farming and cattle grazing. Extensive arable production is generally confined to the better quality soils found on the Southern Fylde peninsula between Preston and Blackpool.

Figure 23 Overview map of the Ribble catchment

78 of 139

Large urban areas are concentrated in the southern part of the catchment, with Clitheroe being the only large town in the more rural north. Major urban areas, such as Preston, Blackburn, Burnley and smaller towns such as Colne, Darwen, Nelson and Accrington have been identified for housing growth and renewal. Watercourses and coastal areas in the catchment are used for a variety of purposes including recreation and tourism. The catchment contains communication routes that are of both regional and national importance and by necessity they cross many rivers and watercourses. The catchment contains three motorways: the M65, M6 and a short section of the M55 between Preston and Blackpool. The West Coast Mainline railway also passes through Preston. Geology The northern area of the catchment is underlain by Carboniferous Limestone, classed as a minor aquifer being important for water supplies and generation of baseflow to rivers. The south eastern area of the catchment is broadly underlain by Millstone Grit (sandstone) which combined with overlying soils tend to generate rapid flow to watercourses. To the south west, the lower Ribble is underlain by Permo-Triassic Sandstones, classed as a major aquifer which can support abstraction for water supply to the public. The low lying coastal zone around Lytham St Annes consists of Triassic Mudstone (a non-aquifer). The catchment is characterised by high levels of bank erosion and coarse sediment bed material in its upper and mid-catchment, and high levels of silt deposition in its tidal reaches. National and International Designations The Ribble Estuary is of international nature conservation importance being designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) and an internationally important wetland (Ramsar site) as well as being a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and parts are designated as a National Nature Reserve (NNR). The estuary is also well established as an Important Bird Area, a designation which recognises the international importance of the estuary in supporting populations of waterfowl. The catchment contains three other internationally designated sites for nature conservation – Bowland Fells SPA, South Pennines Moors SPA and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and the Ingleborough Complex SAC. The catchment also contains multiple Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The Yorkshire Dales National Park which has outstanding scenery and a rich cultural heritage, and the Forest of Bowland Outstanding Area of Natural Beauty (AONB), known for its unspoiled and richly diverse landscapes, both cover parts of the catchment. Partnership Working Within the Ribble Catchment, Risk Management Authorities have developed a good working relationship with our partners. The catchment is covered by eleven local councils; Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Burnley, Chorley, Craven, Fylde, Hyndburn, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley and South Ribble, plus the Lead Local Flood Authority Lancashire County Council. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within the Ribble catchment. In addition to those partners mentioned the Environment Agency also works closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England. Linking with the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Ribble Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme; catchment level government funded improvements;

79 of 139 For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential. Examples of funded measures identified in the NW RBMP that will deliver WFD improvements in this catchment include water company investment to deliver water quality improvements in the River Hodder, the River Darwen, Colne Water and the River Calder. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected].

Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 24 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Ribble catchment

80 of 139 Table 14 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Ribble Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 778,800 5,350 7,100 20,100 <50 Number of services: 1,230 30 20 50 0

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential 74,950 1,000 1,350 3,150 0 properties: Number of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 410 <10 <10 10 0 Length of railway (km): 180 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 34,000 1,600 1,250 2,400 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 1 1 0 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations within 61 3 0 4 0 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 3,800 <50 <50 <50 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 9,500 350 <50 <50 <50 Area of RAMSAR site within area 350 350 <50 <50 0 (ha): Area of World Heritage Site within 0 0 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 13,600 500 100 100 0 Area of Parks and Gardens within 850 <50 <50 <50 <50 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient 100 <50 <50 <50 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 2,570 100 40 100 0 area: Number of Licensed water 280 30 20 10 0 abstractions within the area:

Over 32,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Ribble Catchment, representing approximately 4% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 5500 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding in the Ribble catchment. Approximately 16% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea. Approximately 7% of SSSI sites are at risk of flooding in the area. There are no airports at risk of flooding in the catchment.

81 of 139

Figure 25 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Ribble Catchment.

Flooding from Reservoirs

Table 15 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Ribble Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 778,800 25,300 Number of services: 1230 110

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 74,950 5,000 Number of airports: 1 0 Length of roads (km): 410 20 Length of railway (km): 180 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 34,000 3,900

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 1 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 61 7 Area of SAC within area (ha): 3,800 <50

82 of 139 Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Area of SPA within area (ha): 9,500 <50 Area of RAMSAR site within area (ha): 350 0 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 13,600 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 850 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): 100 <50 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 2,570 250 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 280 40

Over 25,000 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs, equating to 3% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 5,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Ribble catchment. Approximately 11% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Conclusions for the Ribble Catchment The Ribble Catchment covers a mix of urban and rural areas, with different land uses, population densities and types of watercourse. Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources; rivers, the sea, surface water, ordinary watercourses, sewers and reservoirs. There are more than 32,500 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The River Ribble catchment includes the upstream River Calder and the River Darwen catchments. The main flood risk in the upstream catchments is fluvial; however the downstream areas of the River Ribble in Preston are at risk from both fluvial and tidal events. The Environment Agency are currently proposing to construct two flood alleviation schemes in Blackburn, on the River Blakewater and the River Darwen. This involves replacing and raising the existing floodwalls. The Environment Agency have recently completed a large deculverting scheme in Darwen as well as culvert clearing and strengthening works following two flood events. Significant flooding occurred in December 2015 in the Ribble catchment caused by storms Desmond and Eva when heavy rainfall fell on already saturated ground across the North West. Parts of the Ribble catchment received five times the amount of rainfall it would normally receive in an average December. Far Gearstones at Ribblehead recorded over 880mm of rainfall in December 2015 when the average is 180mm. The December storms were estimated to be events with a return period of between a 1 in 75 and 1 in 100 (1.3% - 1%) chance of occurring in any given year. In Whalley and Padiham this was closer to a 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) chance of occurring in any given year (this data is taken from several gauging stations in the Ribble catchment, the return period information is likely to be revised but is correct as at January 2016). At Samlesbury, the River Ribble peaked at 6.953m on the 26th December, which is the highest on record. Most rivers in the Ribble catchment set new river level records over Christmas 2015. The December 2015 flooding affected communities such as Billington, Whalley, Padiham, Ribchester, Clitheroe, Longridge, Brierfield, Nelson, Samlesbury, Higher Walton, Preston and Tickled Trout. In this catchment circa 350 homes and businesses flooded. Flooding cut off small communities and affected livestock and infrastructure including the M6 motorway. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes a review of the options for the communities affected. Flood support officers have visited most of the affected communities. Assets are being reviewed and repaired and site visits and partnership working is ongoing to look at options for future working. Planned and current flood risk schemes are being reviewed which is likely to change some priorities within the 6 year investment programme. Local drop in sessions were held to understand the sources of flooding and impacts on those communities. Future work

83 of 139 will look at options for these communities to develop schemes and flood action groups that protect a greater number of properties affected by this event. All measures for the Ribble catchment are contained in Part C. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the SMP may be reasonable or conservative. Economic growth and development in Pendle and Blackburn could present funding opportunities if complimentary options can be identified to reduce flood risk and allow development. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to identify locations and solutions. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. Flood risk from ‘local sources’ and sewers is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary, or in others. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Ribble Catchment Across the Ribble Catchment there are a total of 41 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: 2 measures  Grimsargh, Preston - Ex-Critical Ordinary Watercourse with poor conveyance & insufficient culvert capacity. Appraisal to investigate how risk can be reduced.  The Wrangling, Blackburn - The Blackburn and Darwen Strategy Study confirmed that blocking the entrance to the Ambulance culvert by 50% increases the water level in the upstream channel, resulting in flood waters leaving the channel at the culvert entrance. Ambulance St & Harrison St. Investigate options to reduce flood risk. Preparing for risk: 9 Measures  Implement improvements in flood warning and flood response. This should include the promotion of the existing formal flood warning areas covering Burnley, Barrowford, Whalley,

84 of 139 and Lomeshaye, as well as implementing the new flood warning area of Padiham. Consideration in the future should be given to the effects of climate change on river flows and flood maps, with revisions to the area covered by the flood warning service if necessary.  Depending on strategy review, undertake project appraisal for Fairhaven Lake Coast Protection Scheme followed by detailed design and construction.  Develop estuary flood risk management strategy taking into account the estuary wide studies to provide more detailed proposals on approaches to the delivery of policy across the estuary and a programme of actions to deliver it. The estuary strategy needs to link to the open coast strategy being developed between Anchorsholme and Naze Point.  Undertake studies to investigate Managed Realignment opportunities in the medium to long term. Investigate the hazard that the landfill site poses to people and the environment from leaching or the release of contaminated materials. Where necessary, consider protection in situ or excavation and removal of material.  Seek opportunities for habitat enhancements during strategy development as part of flood/erosion risk management works Protecting from risk: 30 Measures  Identify structures which cause flow restrictions or flow obstructions in the policy unit, and prioritise structures for replacement / redesigning / removal according to their flood risk. This list should focus on culverted stretches of the Rivers Blakewater and Darwen in Blackburn, as well as stretches highlighted in the Darwen strategy such as Clough Street culvert, Ambulance culvert, Aqueduct culvert.  Develop strategy, subject to prioritisation and funding, to address flood risk within Preston, Fulwood, Cadley, and Walton-le-Dale. The strategy should include modelling of flood risk scenarios in and around Preston to identify the major areas at risk and a cost-benefit analysis for the installation of defences in the future.  River Darwen, Darwen - Much of the watercourse is heavily culverted through the town and 1 in 50 lead to flooding. Investigations into raising the existing standard are required in particularly Waterfall area.  Kirk Beck, Bolton By Bowland - Bolton by Bowland is a small village in rural Lancashire with a long history of flooding problems. A modelling report carried out in 2007 shows specific areas where SoS needs raising to improve the integrity of the flood defences. Currently properties are affected by a 5yr event with up to 28 high value residential properties affected in a 1 in 100yr event.  Trawden Brook, Trawden - The flood risk reach was part of the Burnley Nelson and Colne FRM strategy area 69 properties are at risk of flooding in a 1 in 75 year event. The preferred option is to raise defences to protect against a 1in 75 year event. Works would involve constructing new flood walls and repairing existing walls. Recovery and review of risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work. The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

85 of 139 3.7 The Douglas Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Douglas FRMP Area is located in Lancashire. It is fairly circular in shape, sharing borders with the Ribble, Crossens and Mersey catchments. The Douglas catchment is approximately 460 km2 and drains Wigan, Chorley, Leyland, Horwich and Skelmersdale. The Douglas River discharges into the Ribble estuary approximately 8km downstream of Preston. The lower reaches of which are influenced by tidal regime and some tributaries are currently managed by pumped or flapped outfalls. There is an overlap between the area covered by the Ribble Estuary Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). This SMP covers the coast from Formby Point to the mouth of the River Wyre in the north. It also proposed realignment of coastal defences in order to allow the shoreline to return to a more natural profile in the medium to long term. This may help alleviate flood risk in the lower reaches of this FRMP area. However, any influences of these alterations would need to be taken into consideration regarding management plans. The upper parts of this catchment area are characterised by a series of four reservoirs, known as the Rivington Reservoir Complex. These capture runoff from the Southern Pennines. Downstream of this the River Douglas flows southwest in a relatively steep narrow valley. This is culverted underneath the Worthington reservoir and then flows into Wigan. Following this the valley opens into flat landscape and flows northwest through rural, agricultural land until it reaches the Ribble Estuary.

Figure 26 Overview map of the Douglas Catchment

86 of 139

The Leeds and Liverpool Canal runs through the catchment. The river passes underneath this by the Green St Siphon in Wigan. The river itself connects the canal and the Ribble Estuary, forming part of the Ribble link with the Lancaster Canal to the north. In recent years the floodplain of the lower Douglas and Yarrow consists of high grade agricultural land which is actively drained by pumping within a complex of artificial channels. Furthermore the presence of the Rivington Reservoir complex affects the natural drainage in the upper reaches. Land Use and Management In the upper reaches of the catchment the Rivington Reservoir Complex is used to provide potable water for the North West region. Further downstream, other land forms have been significantly changed over time to allow for intensely managed agricultural land and urban areas to be created in the area. Development has taken place in the natural floodplain, leading to elevated risk of flooding in Wigan, Croston, and Appley Bridge. Overall 22% of the catchment is considered urban, 22% is used for arable and horticultural purposes, 48% is grass- and heathland (mainly improved, calcareous or rough grassland), 7% is woodland and the remainder is inland water, saltmarsh or bog. Previous coal mining of the Douglas area has also been an influential force in shaping land use patterns. Mining has contributed to the fragmentation of agricultural land. It has also led to the creation of wetland, for example the Wigan Flashes, which formed as a result of subsidence of the land. Natural colonisation of these along with land reclamation has led to recreational and ecological benefits; sailing and angling. There is also potential flood storage within these flashes. Management of the Peatland and Wetland area was proposed; ditches are being blocked in order to store water. The result of this reduces the release of water downstream and helps to lessen flood risk of these areas. Other benefits of this would be that it is a relatively cheap practise and can provide immediate results. Geology The underlying geology of the basin is mainly sandstone, shale/mudstones with some coal seams in some areas. Solid rock is covered by drift deposits in much of the catchment, which are mainly low permeability glacial clay with sand and gravels. Areas of alluvium are present in the floodplains whilst peat deposits are present in the higher ground. Areas of rock outcrop are rare within the catchment however they are present in the higher ground to the east of this FRMP area. National and International Designations A wide variety of habitats are present within the catchment. Within this FRMP area there are a number of internationally designated areas of international and national importance. This is due to the presence of a number of Biodiversity 2020 species and also habitats for which there are Habitat Action Plans. The Ribble Estuary has a number of different designations; Special Protection Area (SPA), internationally important wetland (Ramsar site), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and, National Nature Reserve (NNR). Partnership Working Within the Douglas FRMP area Risk Management Authorities are working alongside a number of partners. The catchment is covered by seven local authorities; Chorley, West Lancashire, Wigan, St Helens, Bolton, South Ribble and Blackburn and Darwen. However the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) is Lancashire County Council. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within this FRMP. In addition to those partners mentioned RMAs also work closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England. Linking with the River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies.

87 of 139 The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Douglas Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme; catchment level government funded improvements; For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential. An example of funded measures identified in the NW RBMP that will deliver WFD improvements in this catchment is the water company investment to deliver water quality improvements in the River Douglas. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected].

88 of 139 Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 27 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Douglas catchment.

Table 16 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Douglas Catchment.

River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk

Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 424,100 2,100 4,450 8,800 0 Number of services: 750 20 <10 20 0

Risk to economic activity:

Number of non-residential properties: 36,600 400 350 1,200 <50 Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 220 <10 <10 <10 0 Length of railway (km): 100 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 34,450 1,100 950 3,200 <50

89 of 139 Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 0 0 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 35 3 1 0 0 Area of SAC within area (ha): 0 0 0 0 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 800 550 50 150 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 800 550 50 150 0 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 0 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 850 550 50 150 0 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 300 <50 <50 <50 0 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): <50 0 0 0 0 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 1,100 50 <10 30 0 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 150 30 20 10 0

Over 15,000 people are at risk of flooding from Rivers and the sea in the Douglas Catchment, representing approximately 3.5% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 1,900 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding in the Douglas catchment. Approximately 15% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea. Approximately 90% of SSSI sites are at risk of flooding in the area.

90 of 139 Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 28 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Douglas catchment.

Table 17 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Douglas Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 424,100 14,550 Number of services: 750 50

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 37,000 2,200 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 220 20 Length of railway (km): 100 <50 Agricultural land (ha): 34,450 2,450

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 35 1 Area of SAC within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 800 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 800 0

91 of 139 Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 850 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 300 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): <50 <50 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 1,100 110 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 150 40

Around 14,500 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs, equating to almost 3.5% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 2200 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Douglas catchment. Approximately 7% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Conclusions for the Douglas Catchment The Douglas Catchment covers a mix of urban and rural areas, with different land uses, population densities and types of watercourse. Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources; rivers, tidal, surface water, ordinary watercourses, sewers and reservoirs. There are more than 15,000 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Fluvial, pluvial and sewer flooding poses the greatest risk in urban areas such as Wigan, Chorley, Croston and Leyland. Flood risk can be directly from rising rivers but the most frequent flooding is caused by surface water drains either being unable to cope with intense rainfall, or because they are unable to discharge to rivers due to high levels. This risk has been reduced in Wigan because of the Flood Alleviation Scheme on the River Douglas. Similar works are planned on the River Yarrow to benefit Croston, protecting 438 properties at a cost of £8 million. Significant flooding occurred in December 2015 in the Douglas catchment caused by storms Desmond and Eva when heavy rainfall fell on already saturated ground across the North West. Parts of the Douglas catchment received almost 80% of the average December rainfall on the 25th and 26th December alone. Over twice the amount of rainfall fell in some parts of the catchment compared to an average December. The gauge at Lower Rivington recorded 255.8mm for the whole of December with an average month normally receiving 123mm. The December storms in the Douglas catchment were estimated to be events with a return period of between a 1 in 50 and 1 in 1000 (2% - 0.1%) chance of occurring in any given year (this data is taken from several gauging stations in the Douglas catchment, the return period information is likely to be revised but is correct as at January 2016). The December 2015 flooding affected communities such as Parbold, Croston and Wigan, in this catchment with over 300 homes and businesses flooded. Flooding cut off small communities and affected businesses, livestock and infrastructure. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes a review of the options for the communities affected and completion of the Croston scheme. Flood support officers have visited most of the affected communities. Assets are being reviewed and repaired and site visits and partnership working is ongoing to look at options for future working. Planned and current flood risk schemes are being reviewed which is likely to change some priorities within the 6 year investment programme. Local drop in sessions were held to understand the sources of flooding and impacts on those communities. Future work will look at options for these communities to develop schemes and flood action groups that protect a greater number of properties affected by this event. All measures for the Douglas catchment are contained in Part C.

92 of 139 The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the SMP may be reasonable or conservative. Economic growth and development in Wigan, Chorley, West Lancashire and South Ribble could present funding opportunities if complimentary options can be identified to reduce flood risk and allow development. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to identify locations and solutions. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. Flood risk from ‘local sources’ and sewers is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary, or in others. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Douglas Catchment Across the Douglas Catchment there are 43 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work. Preparing for risk: 7 measures  Consult with landowners and Preston and District Wildfowlers Association over future management of Hutton Marsh and practicality of managed realignment to improve the condition of the internationally designated site in the short term, taking account of the conservation objectives of the site.  Develop estuary flood risk management strategy taking into account the estuary wide and policy unit studies above to provide more detailed proposals on approaches to the delivery of policy across the estuary and a programme of actions to deliver it. The estuary strategy needs to link to the open coast strategy being developed between Anchorsholme and Naze Point.  Undertake study to improve understanding of interaction between river flow and tide in the downstream parts of the policy unit and their impact on flood risk. The study should determine through the use of modelling, survey and historical information the current and

93 of 139 future risk from combined fluvial and tidal events. This study should give an indication of fluvial / tidal interaction and impact on flood risk in Tarleton, Becconsall and Hesketh Bank. The study should provide better estimates of the properties at risk in a combined event and in future events.  Undertake study to improve understanding of interaction between river flow and tide in the downstream parts of the policy unit and their impact on flood risk. The study should determine through the use of modelling, survey and historical information the current and future risk from combined fluvial and tidal events. This study should give an indication of fluvial / tidal interaction and impact on flood risk in Longton, New Longton and Hutton. The study should provide better estimates of the properties at risk in a combined event and in future events. Protecting from risk: 36 measures  Investigate opportunities to remove or realign embankments, create flood storage areas or other alternative means of flood risk management. Changes in land use may provide opportunities to manage flood risk at the current level in the future. Investigation may identify areas for habitat creation in the policy unit as an alternative long term measure for managing flood risk.  Identify opportunities to use flood risk management activities as a tool to reduce erosion where erosion is clearly attributed to these activities.  Carry out a study to investigate suitable locations for habitat inundation. The study should focus on reducing flooding in the Croston policy unit whilst also identifing areas for the floodplain to be reconnected, habitat improvement and enhancement or habitat creation. The issue of flooding good quality agricultural land must be addressed.  The Croston Flood Risk Management Scheme will involve the construction of a flood storage basin upstream of Ecclestone Bridge on the River Yarrow. This will reduce the amount of water that flows through the town when the rivers are in flood. The scheme will reduce flood risk to almost 420 local homes and businesses. Construction will begin in January 2015. This is being run alongside United Utilities who are about to start sewer network improvements to better manage surface and foul water within the village.  Work in partnership with South Ribble BC and United Utilities over sewer and local surface water flooding. Through the production of United Utilities Catchment plans identify and promote joint solutions where surface water and sewer flooding is known to exist. Encourage partner organisations to share flood risk data. Within the policy unit there is evidence of local flooding relating to urban drainage.

The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

94 of 139 3.8 The Alt Crossens Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Alt Crossens Catchment The Alt Crossens FRMP area is located between the Ribble and Mersey Estuaries on the South West Lancashire Plain. The FRMP area is approximately 410 km2 and contains the River Alt as the principal watercourse. Most of the area lies between 1.0 metre below and 5.0 metres above mean sea level, and was historically open water and salt marsh. This area is unusual in comparison to others, as it is a pumped catchment, with most surface water run-off is being pumped into the Irish Sea instead of draining naturally through a river system. The Crossens area mainly consists of manmade channels through what was originally peat moss land. The Crossens area is served by the Crossens pumping station and the Alt area by the Altmouth station. Working in conjunction with several satellite pumping stations these are considered to be two of the largest pumping stations in Europe.

Figure 29 Overview map of the Alt Crossens Catchment As a result of the catchment being extensively developed for agricultural use, a large network of modified watercourses and embanked rivers have been created to support agricultural production (i.e. for land drainage). The land is used in particular for horticulture, with a number of major businesses sited in the area. The area provides a large contribution to the local and national agri- economy, not only through agriculture, but through associated industries such as processing and transportation. The current annual cost to the Environment Agency of maintaining and pumping the watercourses in this area for both flood risk management and drainage is approximately £3 million. In recent years, pumping for agricultural drainage has been reduced. The farming community also undertake a significant amount of their own drainage maintenance work. With pressures on revenue funding increasing, and government funding reducing, the Environment Agency is prioritising spending, meaning that they will reduce or stop funding pumping in most agricultural areas. Where there are plans to permanently stop maintenance activities, the 95 of 139

Environment Agency want to make sure that those affected have plenty of time to consider their options and make alternative arranges. In the Alt Crossens area, the Environment Agency is working closely with partners and the local farming community to discuss alternative sources of funding for future maintenance in the catchment. The options currently being considered with partners include:  The development of a new Internal Drainage Board (IDB)  Maintenance of watercourses and pumping by co-operatives  Beneficiaries pay to fund continued operation  Decomissioning and mitigation The Environment Agency intend to serve notice on several satellite pumping stations in Summer 2015. This serving of notice is for a period of 2 years, and there is still the possibility that other people or organisations will be able to take over the running and maintenance so that the pumping can continue after Summer 2017. If no other people or organisations agree to take over operating the pumps beyond Summer 2017, then the pumps will be switched off and decommissioned. Discussions and close partnership working between the Environment Agency and partners will continue during this period. The serving of notice on pumping stations by the Environment Agency does not mean that farmland in the area will be used as flood storage. Any schemes considered by the Environment Agency for flood defence and flood storage would require detailed analysis and areas would not be chosen without considering impacts. Further development of urban areas would need further analysis. This is necessary in order to understand the possible influence of increased run off on the pumping network currently in place. The low lying nature and near-flat gradients of the land would also mean that any flood water would remain for a long duration if any of the pumping stations were unable to handle the increased surface run-off. Developers are required to control surface water drainage through the use of SUDs (Sustainable Drainage Systems). The purpose of SUDs is to mimic natural drainage, and manage surface water runoff. Lead Local Flood Authorities are now statutory consultees on planning applications, and will be consulted on the management of surface water of new developments. LLFAs will provide technical advice on surface water drainage strategies and designs put forward for new major developments. In response to the summer 2012 floods the Environment Agency trialled Rural Maintenance Pilot areas. In these pilot areas landowners could de-silt 20% of their own watercourse length without applying for formal Consent. This aimed to reduce red tape for farmers. Alt Crossens was a Pilot area and the pilot proved to be very popular among local landowners. There is ongoing partnership working with local landowners, with the Environment Agency providing advice and guidance on sustainable best practice watercourse maintenance. Land Use and Management The land in the area is generally managed for agriculture and horticulture (68% of the area). Approximately two thirds of the rural area (42% of the FRMP area) is considered to be Grade 1 agricultural land. The remainder of the FRMP area is considered urban. The major urban areas contained within the catchment flood plain are those comprising the north east quadrant of the City of Liverpool as well as the coastal towns of Southport and Formby and the inland areas of Ormskirk, Maghull and Kirkby. Drainage is managed differently during the course of a year as the area is mainly located on peat moss land. Water levels are kept low in winter to provide run-off capacity and high in summer to provide water for irrigation and to reduce shrinkage of the underlying peat. There has been some oxidation of peat material and loss of peat volume due to the processes in place. This has resulted in a gradual reduction in land surface elevation in areas of intensive farming. In many places this has been followed by deepening of ditches to improve drainage, which in turn results in more peat loss and land lowering. Currently, the extent of peat settlement across the catchment is not sufficiently understood along with its implications for water level management.

96 of 139 However, due to the compartmentalisation of the land, there is a great degree of flexibility in local water level management: The two designated wetland areas at Martin Mere and Mere Sands Wood both maintain locally higher water levels than the surrounding areas. Geology The geology of the Alt Crossens FRMP area is moderately unresponsive to rainfall. It consists of Permian and Triassic sandstones (Sherwood Sandstone). In the Crossens area the sandstone is overlaid by a relatively impermeable layer of mudstone which reduces groundwater capacity. Beneath the southern part of the catchment is a sandstone aquifer that is heavily exploited for public water supply, as well as providing base flow to the river Alt. National and International Designations The coastline and estuaries are internationally designated for their conservation importance as wetland wildlife habitat. Within the Alt and Crossens FRMP area there are six Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), two sites of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), one Special Protected Area (SPA), two Ramsar sites and three National Nature Reserves. Partnership Working Within the catchment, Risk Management Authorities have developed good working relationships with each other and other interested parties. The Alt and Crossens catchment is covered by several councils: Sefton, West Lancashire, Knowsley, St Helens and Liverpool City who are the Lead Local Flood Authorities for the area, with the exception of West Lancashire District where Lancashire County Council are the LLFA. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within this river basin district. In addition to this, there are a number of other partners who work closely with Risk Management Authorities including: National Farmers Union, Natural England, Marine Management Organisation, Network Rail, Lancashire Wildlife Trust, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, as well as having close links with the local farming communities. The Environment Agency also works closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. Linking with the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Alt Crossens Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme; catchment level government funded improvements; For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential. Examples of funded measures identified in the NW RBMP that will deliver WFD improvements in this catchment include water company investment to deliver water quality improvements in Chisnall Brook and Simonswood Brook. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in

97 of 139 heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected].

Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 30 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Alt Crossens catchment.

Table 18 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Alt Crossens Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 562,800 950 3,850 21,950 50 Number of services: 600 10 <10 40 0

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential 36,300 200 400 1,700 <50 properties: Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 230 <10 <10 20 0 Length of railway (km): 80 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 24,700 800 1,300 4,400 <50

98 of 139 River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 1 1 0 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations within 17 0 0 0 0 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 1,750 350 <50 <50 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 1,450 1,200 <50 250 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 2,500 1,250 <50 250 0

Area of World Heritage Site within 0 0 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 3,050 1,300 <50 300 0

Area of Parks and Gardens within 1,350 <50 <50 <50 0 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient <50 <50 <50 <50 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 860 <10 <10 50 0 area: Number of Licensed water 340 70 40 70 0 abstractions within the area:

27,000 people are at risk of flooding from Rivers and the sea in the Alt Crossens Catchment, representing approximately 5% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 2,200 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from Rivers in the Alt Crossens catchment. Approximately 26% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea. Approximately 52% of SSSI sites and 61% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area.

99 of 139 Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 31 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Alt Crossens catchment.

Table 19 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Alt Crossens Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 562,800 11.250 Number of services: 600 10

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 36,300 300 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 230 20 Length of railway (km): 80 0 Agricultural land (ha): 24,700 350

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 1 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 17 0 Area of SAC within area (ha): 1,750 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 1,450 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 2,500 0

100 of 139 Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 3,050 0 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 1,350 100 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): <50 0 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 860 <10 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 340 <10

11,250 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs, representing approximately 2% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 300 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Alt Crossens catchment. Approximately 1.5% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Conclusions for the Alt Crossens Catchment The Alt Crossens catchment covers a mix of urban and rural areas, with a number of different land uses, population densities and types of watercourse. The area consists of a large proportion of flat low-lying land, with much of the land being used for agricultural purposes. There are 456km of watercourses designated as Main River in the catchment. The beaches along the Sefton coast and the town of Southport are important for the Sefton economy, providing significant amenity and tourism benefits for the area. There is ongoing work with partners in the catchment aiming to reduce the risk of flooding to communities, including work and studies on pumping stations and assets owned by partners (e.g. United Utilities, Sefton MBC, Environment Agency). Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources. There are more than 26,000 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, predominately the latter. In September 2012 flooding was experienced in a number of areas in the Alt Crossens catchment. Significant flooding occurred in December 2015 in the Alt Crossens catchment caused by storms Desmond and Eva when heavy rainfall fell on already saturated ground. The Alt Crossens catchment received 3 times as much rainfall in December 2015 as it would in an average December. The Crossens rain gauge recorded more than 60% of the months’ rainfall falling on just the 25th and 26th December alone. The December 2015 flooding affected communities such as Ormskirk and Burscough. In this catchment circa 100 homes and businesses flooded. Flooding cut off small communities and affected businesses, livestock and infrastructure. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes a review of the options for the communities affected. Flood support officers have visited most of the affected communities. Assets are being reviewed and repaired and site visits and partnership working is ongoing to look at options for future working. Planned and current flood risk schemes are being reviewed which is likely to change some priorities within the 6 year investment programme. Local drop in sessions were held to understand the sources of flooding and impacts on those communities. Future work will look at options for these communities to develop schemes and flood action groups that protect a greater number of properties affected by this event. All measures for the Alt Crossens catchment are contained in Part C. Communities along the coastline of the catchment are at risk of flooding from the sea. During the storm surges in December 2013 and January 2014 there were no reports of property flooding in this area. Areas along the Sefton coastline were however affected, and though there was no flooding to property, there was erosion to the sand dunes and defences on the coast. The dunes retreated by up to 15 metres, though a rate of up to 4 metres in a year is more typical. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets the direction for managing coastal

101 of 139 flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the SMP may be conservative. The high concentration of agriculture and horticulture in the Alt Crossens catchment has meant the catchment has a large number of historic modified, straight watercourses. With the Environment Agency’s reducing revenue budget, pumping and maintenance work has reduced, with the focus being on the priority watercourses in the area. Working with partners and the local farming community, future spending, maintenance and other funding sources are being discussed. Further work is planned to understand the risk from surface water and sewer flooding in and around Formby including completing the Ormskirk Surface Water Management Plan. This will include partnership working between the Environment Agency, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and United Utilities, as well as other key Risk Management Authorities. Groundwater levels in the Mersey basin are known to be rising due to a decline in water abstractions by industry. This is likely to increase future flood risk to basements and low lying areas. It may also affect opportunities for drainage to infiltrate into the ground as a more sustainable alternative to being collected by drains and sewers. Sefton Council are proposing a study to assess opportunities for natural flood management measures within the Merseyside partnership area. The study will identify potential suitable sites for natural flood management techniques, recommend appropriate solutions and provide an outline cost for implementation. An assessment of the reduction in flood risk to properties will be included in this process and sites will then be prioritised according to viability and flood risk reduction. The resulting programme of works will complement those of other organisations. In addition, benefits for water quality and habitats will contribute to meeting the aims of the Water Framework Directive. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. Parts of the Alt and Crossens catchments are within the Liverpool and Sefton significant flood risk area. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses and are not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Alt Crossens Catchment Across the Alt Crossens Catchment there are 42 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work.

102 of 139 Preparing for risk: 10 measures  Investigate the hazard that the erosion of dunes north of the MEPAS pumping station poses to people and the environment from leaching or the release of contaminated materials.  Monitor progress with dune management and restoration in and link to dune habitat work.  Seek opportunities for habitat enhancements during strategy development as part of flood/erosion risk management works e.g. consider scrub control at Hightown within the Sefton Coast Special Area of Conservation  Develop a regional dune habitat restoration programme to mitigate potential dune losses within Sefton Dunes Special Area of Conservation that may result from landward constraints to natural dune roll back.  Seek opportunities for habitat enhancements during strategy development as part of flood/erosion risk management works e.g. consider sand fencing and grazing and scrub/weed control within the designated conservation sites, where and as appropriate. Protecting from risk: 31 measures  In consultation with Natural England, develop a more detailed approach to the management and training of the Alt channel in order to minimise erosion risks to properties and infrastructure and the natural environment.  Develop and adopt long term dune management adaptation strategy to manage roll back of the dunes, maintaining their value as a natural defence and the environmental value.  Provide an ecological review of sites contiguous to Main river outlining opportunities for long term bog and wetland habitat restoration with indicative prioritisation of sites and potential partners.  Preliminary investigation of potential for washland / flood storage on Sudell Brook to inform options for flood risk mitigation and possible habitat creation.  Scoping and briefing report to identify target stakeholders, capacity issues and to look at benefits of feasibility of instituting a partnership group for land management. Group would look at local economic aspects, sustainable land and water management understanding and practices amongst land managers (both agricultural and recreational). Other measures to manage flood risk: 1 measure

 Institute a CO2 calculator and auditing reporting system for annual CO2 emissions from Environment Agency pumping stations within the policy unit.

The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

103 of 139 3.9 The Irwell Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The River Irwell catchment drains the highly urbanised area to the north of Manchester. The catchment covers 715 km2 and the principal watercourses are the Roch, Croal, Medlock and Irk, all of which flow into the River Irwell which becomes the Manchester Ship Canal in Salford Quays. The upper catchment rises in the north where the source of many of the rivers is the Pennines. At its lower end in the south and southwest the elevation is much lower. Major towns include Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Bolton, Bury and Rochdale. Many of the watercourses are heavily modified due to industrial and riverside development with approximately 75,000 people at risk from ‘Main River’ flooding. Much of this risk lies in the urban areas of Salford, Rochdale and Rossendale, although there are smaller areas across the catchment at significant risk of both fluvial and surface water flooding. The flood risk is aggravated by ageing channel walls, weirs and approximately 1,300 culverts, all of which need to be managed. Heavy industry has also contributed historically poor water quality and contamination of adjacent land. There are a high number of areas with challenging socio-economic issues, housing a population who are particularly vulnerable to the affects of flooding. Several of these areas (including Salford, Oldham and Rochdale) are targets for nationally and regionally important regeneration initiatives.

Figure 32 Overview map of the Irwell catchment

104 of 139

Land Use and Management The dominant land use within the catchment is grassland, representing 42% which includes semi- natural acid, neutral and improved grassland found on the higher ground in the north of the catchment, as well as more improved grassland in the lowlands. Numerous agricultural land management schemes, such as Environmental Stewardship and Cross Compliance have encouraged more sustainable land management which may have benefits for flood risk management as secondary objectives. It is likely that the Countryside Stewardship Scheme will provide further guidance and investment in the future and give RMAs the opportunity to influence land use management. The second largest land use (36%) is urban (including suburban) found predominantly in the mid- lower catchment. This is a large percentage in comparison to other catchments. Flood risk management activities, such as building flood defences, can often reduce flood risk, however it is often not possible to protect against very high magnitude floods, or to protect all areas. With current resources it is often not economically viable, nor environmentally acceptable, to provide defences in every location. Geology The north of the catchment the underlying solid geology generally comprises Lower Coal Measures overlying Millstone Grit, both from the Carboniferous era. They are classified as minor aquifers, meaning they will hold water, but only in relatively small amounts. In the south of the catchment the geology generally consists of a mixture of Manchester Marls, Collyhurst Sandstone and predominantly Sherwood Sandstone which are more significant aquifers. The geology of the catchment has a large impact on the landscape, land use, groundwater levels and hydrology of the area, as well as an impact on the potential and function of infiltration SUDs. For example, there are large areas of clay soils in the Irwell catchment which are often unsuitable for infiltration SUDs. Although small, there are areas of sandy soils within the catchment which means that infiltration SUDs may be appropriate. National and International Designations The Irwell catchment is predominantly urban, and as a result biodiversity is limited. However, it has numerous nature conservation sites of national and international importance. These include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Nationally protected species that have been recorded in the catchment include great crested newts, water voles, otters, floating water plantain and bats, which use rivers and streams as feeding areas. Notable designated sites also include the South Pennine Moors (Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area) and the Rochdale Canal (Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation). Partnership Working Within the catchment, Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have developed a good working relationship with partners. The Irwell catchment is covered by a number of councils: Salford City, Tameside, Trafford, Bury, Bolton, Manchester City, Rochdale, Rossendale, Oldham, Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire County and Burnley. In addition to local authorities, a number of organisations and individuals have a role to play in managing flood risks, such as highways authorities, the Highway Agency, Network Rail, Canal and River Trust, Manchester Ship Canal Company and private land owners. The Broughton Trust through the Irwell Valley Sustainable Communities programme is working to raise community awareness of flood risk and promoting sign up to the Environment Agency Flood Warning Service. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within the Irwell catchment. In addition to those partners mentioned RMAs also work closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England.

105 of 139 Linking with the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Irwell Management catchment include those in the Water Company investment programme. Examples of funded measures identified in the NW RBMP that will deliver WFD improvements in this catchment include water company investment to deliver water quality improvements in River Medlock and Eagley Brook. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency. [email protected]

106 of 139 Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 33 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Irwell catchment.

Table 20 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Irwell Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 1,547,150 3,250 6,400 65,950 250 Number of services: 1,790 30 20 100 0 Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential 87,900 700 600 5,900 <50 properties: Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 560 <10 <10 30 0 Length of railway (km): 150 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 6,100 100 <50 300 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 0 0 0 0 0 waters within 50m:

107 of 139 River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Number of EPR installations within 74 12 0 15 0 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 1,100 0 0 0 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 1,100 0 0 0 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 0 0 0 0 0 Area of World Heritage Site within 0 0 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 1,250 <50 <50 <50 0 Area of Parks and Gardens within 500 <50 <50 <50 <50 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient <50 <50 <50 <50 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 2,360 50 10 120 0 area: Number of Licensed water 240 20 <10 20 0 abstractions within the area:

Over 1.5 million people live within the Irwell catchment. In excess of 75,000 are considered to live in properties that are at some fluvial flood risk along with over 6,000 commercial properties. Although the Irwell is a relatively urbanised catchment there are over 400Ha of agricultural land at fluvial flood risk.

Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 34 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Irwell catchment.

108 of 139 Table 21 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Irwell Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 1,547,150 169,650 Number of services: 1,790 270

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 87,900 11,600 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 560 60 Length of railway (km): 150 20 Agricultural land (ha): 6,100 500

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 74 20 Area of SAC within area (ha): 1,100 <50 Area of SPA within area (ha): 1,100 <50 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 1,250 100 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 500 100 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): <50 <50 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 2,360 290 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 240 60

Over 169,000 people live in properties within the Reservoir Map flood extent in the Irwell catchment - equating to around 11% of the population. Based on these indicative maps, there are also over 11,600 commercial properties and 500Ha of agricultural land within the flood extents. Conclusions for the Irwell Catchment The Irwell Catchment is a well populated, urbanised catchment, especially in its lower reaches. As in any urban catchment, there are a number of sources of flooding in the Irwell catchment. Rivers, surface water and sewer flooding all pose a risk at locations across the catchment. Over 75,000 people are at risk from fluvial flooding alone within the catchment and many more are at risk from surface water and sewers. In an industrial catchment such as the Irwell, with ageing infrastructure and dense housing, there are often complex interactions between several sources of flooding. A significant challenge facing RMAs, as acknowledged in the CFMP and a number of the local Flood Risk Management Strategies, is to understand and manage the various sources of risk in an urban environment. One aim must be to continue to further understand surface water flooding across the catchment and to work in partnership with United Utilities, where surface water or fluvial flooding interact with sewer flooding.

109 of 139 According to the Salford local FRM Strategy there are 15,000 properties within Salford City Council within the Extreme Flood Outline for all fluvial risk sources including the Manchester Ship Canal. The Environment Agency and the Manchester Ship Canal Company will continue to work together to further understanding of flooding on the canal. Significant flooding occurred on Boxing Day in 2015, when heavy rainfall from Storm Eva fell on already saturated ground across the North West. Rain gauges across the Irwell catchment received between 160 – 300mm of rainfall in December, compared to a December average of 100 – 137mm. Of the 44 river level monitoring gauges in the catchment, 37 recorded their highest ever flows. River levels at many gauges exceeded levels predicted with a 1 in 100 (1%) chance of occurring in any given year. The December 2015 flooding affected areas of Bolton MBC (Prestolee), Bury MBC (Radcliffe, Summerseat, Breightmet, Holcombe Brook), Rochdale MBC (Littleborough, Rochdale, Heap Bridge, Milnrow, Smallbridge, Newhey, Middleton), Rossendale BC (Irwell Vale, Strongstry, Chatterton, Shawforth, Helmshore, Stacksteads, Stubbylee, Waterfoot, Rawtenstall, Whitewell Bottom, Loveclough, Bacup, Cowpe), Salford CC (Lower Broughton and Lower Kersal), with about 2,300 homes and businesses flooded. There was extensive damage to river channel retaining walls across the catchment, damage to a short length of defence at Littleborough, several collapsed or damaged bridges (mostly pedestrian/bridleway), numerous electricity sub-stations affected and some damage to wastewater treatment works. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes asset inspection and repair, community engagement and investigation of the floods by relevant Risk Management Authorities to understand flood mechanisms. Communities along the Irwell valley have experienced a number of flood events in recent years. In June 2012 heavy rainfall across the Upper Irwell catchment, caused flooding at a number of locations due to factors including blocked debris screens and channel capacity being exceeded. Previously, in June 2002 heavy rainfall caused flooding to both commercial and residential properties in several locations across the catchment including Lostock, Bolton, Strongstry, Crawshawbooth, Irwell Vale, Helmshore, Summerseat, Littleborough, Bacup, and Whitewell Bottom. Further back in history, there have been significant floods on the Lower River Irwell. For example, in 1866 a large flood caused a number of fatalities in Salford and in 1946 an event of similar magnitude caused 5,300 residential properties to flood within the city. A second flood storage basin has now been identified as the most cost effective method of reducing risk in the Lower Irwell and work is expected to begin on site in 2015. A number of the local Flood Risk Management Strategies, such as Rochdale Council and Bolton Council’s, highlight the need to continue to engage and educate local communities in flood risk. An example of this is Rochdale Council’s objective of delivering and extending good practice across the Greater Manchester Partnership from the Rochdale and Heywood Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder project. Local FRM Strategies within the catchment also promote the concept of local communities becoming involved in large capital schemes through consultation. Economic growth and development in Greater Manchester could present funding opportunities if complimentary options can be identified to reduce flood risk and allow sustainable development. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to identify locations and solutions. In some cases existing water supply reservoirs might be operated differently to reduce flood risk from rivers downstream; water resource impacts, costs and benefits must be considered as part of this. Blackstone Edge reservoir upstream of Littleborough and Rochdale, for example, is currently being investigated, amongst other options, to reduce fluvial risk in the towns downstream. It is believed that upland, rural parts of the catchment may offer opportunities to attenuate flood flows through land management change, although the CFMP suggests that this is likely to be only worthwhile on a localised basis. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge

110 of 139 significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part A is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. The Irwell catchment includes areas within the Greater Manchester significant flood risk area and some areas outside this. Local flood risk is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District.

Measures across the Irwell Catchment Across the Irwell Catchment there are 21 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: 2 measures  River Beal, Shaw. Assess possible flood risk management options in Shaw and Milnrow.  Brightley Brook, Heywood. Area at risk of fluvial flooding, further investigation required. Preparing for risk: 2 measure  River Irk, Royton - Culvert blockage poses a flood risk to properties on Chetwyn Ave, Royton. Investigate installation of telemetry to provide warnings when culvert capacity is reduced.  Shawforth - Area at risk of fluvial flooding, further investigation required. Protecting from risk: 17 measures  Identify opportunities to protect or restore river corridors linked to regeneration/ redevelopment or specifically for reduction of flood risk. This could result in schemes that reduce flood risk and also provide sustainable channels with biodiversity and amenity benefits.  River Roch, Rochdale & Littleborough. A full appraisal project is currently looking at the viability of flood risk management works in Rochdale and Littleborough. The Local Authority are partners in this process.  Central Manchester Strategy - Initial viability study in 2010 indicated a further strategy is not required and Corn Brook, a non-main watercourse, is the main area of flood risk.  River Spodden, Whitworth - Proposed works include new flood embankments and walls, improvements to existing defences and fitting flap valves to drainage outfalls.  Identify opportunities to protect or restore river corridors linked to regeneration /redevelopment or specifically for reduction of flood risk. This could result in schemes that

111 of 139 reduce flood risk and also provide sustainable channels with biodiversity and amenity benefits. Recovery and review of risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work. The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

112 of 139 3.10 The Upper Mersey Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The catchment covers approximately 1,052km2 of the uppermost Mersey catchment, including the periphery of the Greater Manchester Conurbation to the north and the Cheshire Plains to the south. The area extends from the Pennines at its eastern boundary, which is dominated by the Peak District National Park, to the Manchester Ship Canal in the west. The River Mersey is formed by the confluence of the River Tame and River Goyt at Stockport. It flows west through Manchester before entering the Lower Mersey catchment, where it flows towards the Irish Sea at Liverpool Bay. Other major Main River watercourses within the catchment include Sinderland Brook, River Etherow, River Bollin and their tributaries. Many watercourses within the catchment have been extensively modified. The total length of Main Rivers draining the catchment is approximately 560km. In urban areas, many watercourses have been culverted or channelised to reduce flood risk. The natural drainage at the outlet of the catchment has been truncated and largely replaced with the Manchester Ship Canal, which also receives water from the River Irwell catchment. The four other significant canals in the catchment are the Bridgewater Canal, Macclesfield Canal, Peak Forest Canal and Huddersfield Narrow Canal. Reservoirs within the Tame, Goyt and Etherow sub-catchments have an influence on flows within the catchment, particularly in the upper reaches.

Figure 35 Overview map of the Upper Mersey catchment

113 of 139

Land Use and Management The land within the catchment is dominated by agricultural land accounting for 72% of the total area, with the remaining 27% primarily comprising urban areas. Farming practices vary from arable farming on the flatter areas of the Cheshire Plain, to livestock rearing in the central and eastern parts of the catchment and sheep farming in the upland heaths. The catchment has a total population of approximately 1.2 million. The northern part of the catchment is dominated by the Greater Manchester conurbation and includes the villages/suburbs of Stockport, Didsbury, Cheadle, Sale and Altrincham. The majority of the population is located within this heavily urbanised area. In more rural areas, the population is more widely dispersed although there are a number of towns such as Knutsford and Macclesfield. Further smaller urban areas include Wilmslow, Bollington, Glossop and Whaley Bridge. There is significant development pressure in Manchester City Centre which has experienced a large degree of development expenditure in recent years and there have been associated increases in surrounding areas. Geology The Pennine uplands to the east are underlain by Carboniferous gritstones. Coal measures underlie a north-south band to the east of Macclesfield and Romiley. As there is limited drift geology and relatively impermeable strata in both these areas, the geology in the east is likely to contribute to more rapid run-off. The centre of the catchment and Mersey Valley are underlain by a sandstone aquifer that is exploited for both industrial and public water supply. Triassic and Permian marls underlie the western parts of the catchment. The bedrock is overlain by river terrace deposits and alluvium. As this drift geology is more permeable and will assist groundwater recharge, the geology in the western part of the catchment is likely to contribute to slower run-off compared to the eastern part of the catchment. National and International Designations Tatton Mere and The Mere Ramsar sites (part of the Midland Mere and Mosses Network) and Rothserne Mere Ramsar site (which is also a designated a National Nature Reserve) are open water bodies and support rare plants and invertebrates. Notable designated sites also include the South Pennine Moors Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area as well as 13 Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The Peak District National Park covers approximately one quarter of the catchment. Its topography contributes to rainfall events as the highest annual rainfall amounts occur here. Partnership Working Within the catchment Risk Management Authorities have developed a good working relationship with partners. The catchment is covered by nine local authorities, Derbyshire County Council, High Peak Borough Council, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, Tameside Borough Council, Manchester City Council, Trafford Borough Council, Cheshire East Council and Warrington Borough Council. The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) is an umbrella organisation that represents the ten local authorities in Greater Manchester (Wigan, Stockport, Manchester, Tameside, Trafford, Salford, Oldham, Bolton, Bury and Rochdale). The AGMA authorities co-operate on a number of issues, both statutory and non-statutory, where there is the possibility of improving service delivery by working together. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within the Upper Mersey catchment. In addition to those partners mentioned RMAs also work closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England.

114 of 139 Linking with the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Upper Mersey Management catchment include: Water Company investment programme; Flood Risk Management investment programme ; catchment level government funded improvements; For example, funding from the flood risk management investment programme has been secured to deliver mitigation measures in water bodies designated for flood protection. This will move the status of a few water bodies in this catchment towards good ecological potential. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected]

115 of 139 Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 36 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Upper Mersey catchment.

Table 22 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Upper Mersey Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 1,116,750 2,150 4,250 18,250 150 Number of services: 1,340 30 20 40 0

Risk to economic activity:

Number of non-residential 70,000 650 300 2,150 <50 properties: Number of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 410 <10 <10 10 <10 Length of railway (km): 230 <10 <10 <10 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 27,300 850 300 800 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 0 0 0 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations within 45 9 1 1 0 50m: 116 of 139 River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Area of SAC within area (ha): 14,200 <50 <50 <50 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 14,200 <50 <50 <50 <50 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 200 50 <50 <50 0

Area of World Heritage Site within 0 0 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 14,750 150 <50 <50 <50

Area of Parks and Gardens within 1,900 <50 <50 <50 0 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient 50 <50 <50 <50 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 2,830 60 10 60 0 area: Number of Licensed water 210 60 <10 20 0 abstractions within the area:

To summarise, over 24,000 people are at risk of flooding from Rivers, representing approximately 2% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 10,500 residential properties and 3100 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from Rivers in the Upper Mersey catchment. Approximately 7% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Rivers. Just over half of the area covered by the three designated Ramsar sites within the catchment is also at risk of flooding from Rivers. Manchester Airport, is not at risk of flooding from Rivers although the River Bollin flows beneath one runway.

Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 37 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Upper Mersey catchment.

117 of 139 Table 23 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Upper Mersey Catchment Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 1,116,750 59,700 Number of services: 1,340 140

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 70,000 7,200 Number of airports: 1 0 Length of roads (km): 410 60 Length of railway (km): 230 20 Agricultural land (ha): 27,300 2,300

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 45 17 Area of SAC within area (ha): 14,200 <50 Area of SPA within area (ha): 14,200 <50 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 200 100 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 14,750 200 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 1,900 200 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): 50 <50 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 2,830 300 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 210 90

To summarise, over 59,000 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs, representing approximately 5% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 25,000 residential properties and over 7,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Upper Mersey catchment. Approximately 8% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Just over half of the area covered by the three designated Ramsar sites within the catchment is also at risk of flooding from reservoirs. The major airport within the catchment is not at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Conclusions for the Upper Mersey Catchment The Upper Mersey Catchment covers a mix of urban and rural areas with different land uses, population densities and types of watercourse. Originating with fast responding watercourses in the upper reaches of the Rivers Tame and Goyt in the Peak District of Derbyshire, water flows through the conurbations of Greater Manchester and culminates at the Manchester Ship canal on the west of the city of Manchester. Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources; rivers, surface water, ordinary watercourses, groundwater (in areas to the east of Stockport), sewers and reservoirs. There are more than 24,000 people at risk of flooding from rivers.

118 of 139 The legacy of industrialisation has left parts of the catchment with modified watercourses and ageing infrastructure. Many of these watercourses are culverted and susceptible to blockage from silt, vegetation or debris. Urban areas such as Manchester have considerable lengths of culverted watercourses beneath them which present many challenges for maintenance. It should be noted that with ageing infrastructure and dense housing, there are often complex interactions between several sources of flooding. A significant challenge facing Risk Management Authorities (RMAs), as acknowledged in the Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP), is managing the various sources of risk across different RMAs in an urban environment. The aim must be to continue to further understand surface water flooding issues across the catchment and to work in partnership with United Utilities, where surface water and fluvial flooding interact with sewer flooding. The catchment also includes four Environment Agency flood risk major assets; Woolley Bridge flood gates on the River Etherow at the top of the catchment, Sale and Didsbury flood storage basins on the River Mersey and Timperley Brook basin, all in south Manchester. These will all need continued maintenance and operation Communities within the catchment have experienced a number of flood events. Flooding occurred on Boxing Day in 2015, when heavy rainfall from Storm Eva fell on already saturated ground across the North West. The December 2015 flooding affected around 32 properties at Delph and Uppermill in the Upper Mersey catchment. Following the floods a programme of recovery is in place which includes asset inspection and repair, community engagement and investigation of the floods by relevant Risk Management Authorities to understand flood mechanisms. In 1965 and 1973 flooding occurred from the River Mersey in south Manchester which resulted in the flood storage basins being built. In July 2002 thunderstorms caused a major flood in Glossop and in the summer of 2012 heavy rainfall across the catchment saw flooding from a number of sources including blocked debris screens, channel capacity exceedance and surface water. The flood storage basins were also operated, protecting properties and infrastructure. Economic growth and development in Manchester could present funding opportunities if complimentary options can be identified to reduce flood risk and allow development. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to identify locations and solutions. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part A is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. The Upper Mersey catchment includes areas within the Greater Manchester significant flood risk area and some areas outside this. Local flood risk is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the

119 of 139 principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District.

Measures across the Upper Mersey Catchment Across the Upper Mersey Catchment there are 21 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: 1 measure  Assess the potential for making further storage or expanding existing storage to reduce flood risk downstream and increase biodiversity and water sports recreation (2 measures in separate locations). Preparing for risk: 11 measures  Investigate the impact of catchment changes (Climate Change, development, land use change) on the current standard of protection provided by defences in Bollington, Macclesfield and Prestbury and identify options for maintaining the existing standard into the future.  Implement planned new Flood Warning Areas including Bollington, Handforth and Wilmslow.  Increase awareness of new and existing Flood Warning Areas in Glossop and Woolley Bridge. Improve community knowledge of actions to take on receipt of a warning.  Identify the maintenance/capital works associated with flood risk management assets that will be required over the future 100-year horizon. This should also identify areas where maintenance effort can be redirected from rural to urban areas to provide greatest flood risk benefit from the expenditure in the catchment. (3 measures in separate locations)  Undertake a catchment Gravel Management Plan to identify how gravel levels in the channel can be managed in an environmentally sensitive manner Protecting from risk: 9 measures  Undertake a study to consider the justification and appropriate solutions for reducing flood risk in Mossley, Stalybridge, Uppermill and Diggle.  Undertake a Flood Risk Strategy for Chorlton Platt Gore to consider a range of options for reducing flood risk in Chorlton and Fallowfield.  Undertake a Flood Risk Strategy on the River Mersey to consider the justification and appropriate solutions for increasing the Standard of Protection of existing defences, now and in the future, to achieve a defence standard appropriate to risk.  Undertake a study to investigate the condition of and flood risk associated with culverted watercourses e.g. Chorlton Platt Gore and Cringle Black Brook. This should include the impact of blockages and any mitigation measures which could be put in place.  Promote Slowing the Flow/Natural Flood Management projects The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

120 of 139

3.11 The Lower Mersey Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Lower Mersey Catchment The catchment covers the lowermost 800km² of the Mersey catchment, including most of the Wirral, and tributaries north of the Manchester Ship Canal. The area extends from South Bolton in the east, through Warrington and St Helens, and includes the Mersey Estuary at Liverpool. The River Mersey is formed by the confluence of the Goyt and Tame Rivers at Stockport. It flows West through Manchester finally entering the Irish Sea at Liverpool Bay. The River Mersey estuary is one of the largest estuaries in the UK. Other key watercourses within this catchment include Ditton Brook, Sankey Brook, the River Glaze, Spittle Brook, Keckwick Brookand Padgate Brook. Much of Wirral is drained by the River Birkett and its tributaries the River Fender and Arrowe Brook. The south of Wirral is drained by the River Dibbin, Dibbinsdale Brook and Rivacre Brook. There are also 3 canal systems, the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, St Helens Canal, and the Manchester Ship Canal. The Manchester Ship Canal receives waters from both the Upper Mersey and River Irwell catchments and provides an important drainage and flood alleviation function.

Leigh

St Helens

Liverpool Warrington Birkenhead

Figure 38 Overview map of the Lower Mersey catchment

Land Use and Management The land in the catchment is generally flat and low lying and is dominated by agricultural land and urban development, with around a third of the North West population living in the catchment. Some key urban areas include Liverpool, Birkenhead, St Helens, Leigh, Widnes and Warrington.

121 of 139

Historically, the area has been associated with shipping, manufacturing, the chemical industry, mining and agriculture. These industries left a legacy of environmental issues and by the 1980s the Mersey and its tributaries were some of the most polluted watercourses in Europe. However, through successful campaigns and investment, the River Mersey’s water quality has greatly improved as shown by the return of salmon to the river. The growth of towns and cities during the industrial revolution led to the modifying of many rivers across the catchment; for example Liverpool’s rivers were culverted as the city grew. A number of projects have either removed obstructions or constructed fish passes to allow fish to move more freely. Geology Beneath most of the catchment lies the Lower Mersey sandstone aquifer that is used for both public and industrial water supply. The aquifer supports large-scale ground water extractions and is moderately unresponsive to rainfall. Carboniferous coal measures underly the northern parts of the catchment. National and International Designations The Mersey Estuary’s intertidal mudflats and estuarine landscapes are recognised as being internationally important winter feeding sites for protected bird species. The Mersey Estuary is a designated Ramsar site, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest. Other notable designated sites include the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore Ramsar site, the Manchester Mosses Special Area of Conservation as well as multiple Sites of Special Scientific Interest and local nature reserves. Partnership Working Within the Lower Mersey Catchment Risk Management Authorities have developed good working relationship with partners. The catchment is covered by 12 local authorities, Wirral Borough Council, Liverpool City Council, Cheshire West and Chester Council, Sefton Council, Knowsley Council, St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, Warrington Borough Council, Halton Borough Council with small areas falling in West Lancashire Borough Council, Wigan Council, Bolton Council and Salford City council. United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within the Lower Mersey catchment. In addition to those partners mentioned RMAs also work closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England. Linking with the North West River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improve status in other water bodies. The programme of measures includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Lower Mersey Management catchment include: catchment level government funded improvements and water resources sustainability measures. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a

122 of 139

range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected] Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Leigh

St Helens

Liverpool Warrington Birkenhead

Figure 39 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Lower Mersey catchment.

Table 24 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Lower Mersey Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low RBD risk risk Risk to people: Number of people in area: 1,482,300 10,600 6,800 29,750 100 Number of services: 1,790 30 20 50 0

Risk to economic activity:

Number of non-residential properties: 86,600 1,000 700 2,300 <50 Number of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 610 <10 10 20 <10 Length of railway (km): 250 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 38,850 1,150 550 900 <50

123 of 139

River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low RBD risk risk Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing 0 0 0 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations within 81 9 1 2 0 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 200 50 0 0 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 250 100 <50 <50 <50 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 250 100 <50 <50 <50 Area of World Heritage Site within area 450 <50 0 <50 0 (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 1,000 250 <50 <50 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within area 850 0 0 0 0 (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument <50 <50 <50 <50 0 within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within area: 2,760 20 10 30 0 Number of Licensed water abstractions 220 20 <10 <10 0 within the area:

Over 47,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Lower Mersey Catchment, representing approximately 3% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 4,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Lower Mersey catchment. Approximately 7% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Approximately 26% of SSSI sites and 67% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area. Liverpool airport is the only major airport in the catchment and is not at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea.

124 of 139

Flooding from Reservoirs

Leigh

St Helens

Liverpool Birkenhead Warrington

Figure 40 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Lower Mersey catchment.

Table 25 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Lower Mersey Catchment Reservoirs Total in RBD Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 1,482,300 21,000 Number of services: 1,790 50

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 86,600 1,550 Number of airports: 1 0 Length of roads (km): 610 20 Length of railway (km): 250 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 38,850 900

Risk to the natural and historic environment:

Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 81 9 Area of SAC within area (ha): 200 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 250 0 Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 250 0 125 of 139

Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 450 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 1,000 <50 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 850 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): <50 <50 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 2,760 30 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 220 10

Over 21,000 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs, representing approximately 1.5% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 1500 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Lower Mersey catchment. Approximately 2% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from reservoirs. The major airport within the catchment is not at risk of flooding from reservoirs Conclusions for the Lower Mersey Catchment The Lower Mersey Catchment covers a mix of urban and rural areas, with different land uses, population densities and types of watercourse. Flood risk within the catchment is from a variety of sources; rivers, the sea, surface water, ordinary watercourses, groundwater, sewers and reservoirs. There are more than 47,000 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The River Mersey is designated Main River at the point where it flows into the Manchester Ship Canal. Downstream of this point the River Mersey is classed as an ordinary watercourse. Significant flooding occurred on Boxing Day in 2015, when heavy rainfall from Storm Eva fell on already saturated ground across the North West. Very localised bursts of rainfall caused river levels in some parts of the catchment to rise. Resulting flooding affected areas in Wigan MBC (Aspull, Haigh, Hindley, Tyldesley, Platt Bridge, Bickershaw and Lilford), St Helens BC (Rainford and Blackbrook) and Warrington BC (Dallam, Orford and Croft) in the Lower Mersey catchment. Over 100 properties were affected in these areas. In September 2015 parts of the Wirral suffered flooding affecting approximately 100 properties, following similar localised heavy rain. Following these floods, a programme of recovery is in place which includes asset inspection and repair, community engagement and investigation of the floods by relevant Risk Management Authorities to understand flood mechanisms. Communities along the coastline of the catchment are at risk of flooding from the sea. Properties at Neston and New Brighton on the Wirral peninsula were flooded during the most recent high storm surge (in December 2013 through to January 2014). Areas along the Sefton coastline were also affected. Although there was no flooding to property, the sand dunes at Formby were affected. They have lost several metres in the last few years including 30 metres following the winter 2013/14 storms, despite work by Sefton Council to manage this using fencing and vegetation. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed pre 2008 with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the Shoreline Management Plan may be reasonable or conservative. The legacy of industrialisation has left parts of the catchment with modified watercourses and ageing infrastructure. There are also substantial areas of contaminated land in the catchment, partly due to the history and predominance of the chemical industry in this catchment. Much of it is near to watercourses in areas including Widnes, St Helens and Birkenhead. Many of these watercourses are culverted and susceptible to blockage from silt, vegetation or fly-tipping. Urban areas such as Liverpool have considerable lengths of culverted watercourses beneath the city.

126 of 139

Groundwater levels in the Mersey basin are known to be rising due to a decline in water abstractions by industry. This is likely to increase future flood risk to basements and low lying areas as well as increasing pumping required to keep transport tunnels dry. It may also affect opportunities for drainage to infiltrate into the ground as a more sustainable alternative to being collected by drains and sewers. Economic growth and development in Liverpool could present funding opportunities if complementary options can be identified to reduce flood risk and allow development. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to identify locations and solutions. More work is planned to understand the risk in Wirral from surface water and sewer flooding. This may include a joint project between Wirral Council and United Utilities to develop a computer model of the area. Sefton Council are proposing a study to assess opportunities for natural flood management measures within the Merseyside partnership area. The study will identify potential suitable sites for natural flood management techniques, recommend appropriate solutions and provide an outline cost for implementation. An assessment of the reduction in flood risk to properties will be included in this process and sites will then be prioritised according to viability and flood risk reduction. The resulting programme of works will complement those of other organisations. In addition, benefits for water quality and habitats will contribute to meeting the aims of the Water Framework Directive. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part A is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore: Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. The Lower Mersey catchment includes much of Liverpool, which is in the significant flood risk area of Liverpool and Sefton. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses and are not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Lower Mersey Catchment Across the Lower Mersey Catchment there are 30 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: there are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work Preparing for risk: 15 Measures  Identify opportunities to reduce the existing level of maintenance at key asset systems including Dog Clog pumping station.

127 of 139

 Linked to the Regional Habitat Creation Programme, investigate viability of managed realignment for habitat creation and flood storage, including consultation, modelling of impacts on estuary, and investigation of options for managing contamination risks (2 measures multiple locations).  Monitor proposals for estuary tidal power barrages and build into next review of SMP  The Environment Agency is currently undertaking a groundwater resource investigation in the North Merseyside and Lower Mersey Basin. We will review outcomes of this study and look to enhance existing groundwater monitoring network targeting areas susceptible to groundwater emergence (6 measures in multiple locations)  With tidal flood risk and the future increase look to encourage the use of flood resilience and flood-proofing to existing properties in Liverpool through the provision of information and advice and seek appropriate opportunities for funding these measures. Protecting from risk: 17 Measures  The River Mersey Flood Risk Management Scheme to address fluvial and tidal flood risk from the River Mersey in Warrington.  The West Leigh Flood Risk Management scheme to address fluvial flood risk in Leigh.  Rainford Brook, Beech Gardens Rainford – Risk of flooding from Rainford Brook due to service crossings channel constraints. Investigate options for removal of pipe crossings.  Investigate the potential for flood storage and natural flood management in rural areas to reduce flood risk in the urban area of Leigh.  Mersey Estuary/Liverpool Bay Managed Realignment Viability Study - Investigate opportunities to set back defences in the medium term for habitat creation opportunities and flood reduction benefits. The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

128 of 139

3.12 The Weaver and Gowy Catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Weaver and Gowy catchments are situated to the South of the River Mersey on the Cheshire Plain. The area is approximately 1730 km2 and drains into the Mersey Estuary. The Cheshire Plain is predominantly rural and low lying in nature with the exception of an urban zone running through the centre of the Plain. Crewe, Nantwich, Winsford and Northwich make up this band of urban settlements. The Cheshire Plain forms the majority of the catchment, which is interrupted by a sandstone ridge running north-south across it. This area generally responds slowly to rainfall events, such that the response time for Northwich is one the slowest for the RBD. The higher ground that surrounds the catchment responds much more quickly, particularly in the Dane sub- catchment to the east. Most rivers flow northwards into the Manchester Ship Canal which discharges into the River Mersey, however, some watercourses flow directly into the Mersey Estuary. The upper Dane and Weaver sub-catchments have natural, wide floodplains. The Gowy sub- catchment has been managed for mixed agricultural uses and as a result, a large network of modified watercourses and embanked rivers was created to support agricultural production. In the past, rivers have been modified at the urban locations to convey water more efficiently. This has been done through artificial and straightened river channels. Most of the urban floodplains (this is land alongside the river which can become inundated during periods of high water) have been developed.

Figure 41 Overview map of the Weaver and Gowy catchment

The key urban areas within the catchment lie in the industrialised areas adjacent to the River 129 of 139

Mersey, such as Ellesmere Port and Runcorn, and elsewhere including Crewe, Winsford and Northwich. Congleton is located to the east at the foothills of the Pennines. Stanlow oil refinery, a regionally important economic asset is located within the floodplain of this catchment. The catchment’s industrial heritage is further demonstrated by the extensive canal system, including the Weaver Navigation which runs from Winsford to the Manchester Ship Canal. Up to 90% of the total properties listed at flood risk in this catchment are in the key urban areas of Northwich, Congleton and Frodsham. In the Weaver Gowy catchment there is a history of flooding. The most significant event was in 1946 when snowmelt and heavy rain across the catchment caused Northwich to flood affecting over 300 properties. In February 1946, a flood with a 1% chance of occurring in any given year severely affected 256 houses and 70 shops in the town. The town also flooded again after heavy rainfall in 1977, 2000 and twice in 2012. Congleton flooded in 1987 affecting 27 properties and again in 1998 where 53 properties were affected in Congleton and Biddulph. Stanlow flooded in 1997 due to failure of a tidal gate and also affected some of the oil refinery buildings. Tidal flooding is caused by storm surge in times of high astronomical tides. Part of the northern boundary of the catchment is in the tidal floodplain of the Mersey Estuary. The tidal flood limit reaches Bridge Trafford on the River Gowy and upstream to Frodsham on the River Weaver. Where rivers discharge into an estuary or the sea, such as the River Weaver at Runcorn, there can potentially be either a fluvial or tidal flood event or both at the same time. Therefore, flood damages in tidal and fluvial flood risk areas like Stanlow, Runcorn and Frodsham could be relatively high. Cattle farming tends to dominate the agriculture in the area, although some arable farming is also present. As a result of this active farming, pollution from rural areas is a significant issue affecting both the surface and groundwater in the area. An extensive network of canals was built in the catchment. Key canal systems include the Bridgewater Canal, Trent and Mersey Canal; Shropshire Union Canal, Llangollen Canal, Macclesfield Canal and the Manchester Ship Canal. A number of natural watercourses have also been modified to support navigation for the salt trade. As these have been altered there have been some measures put in place to alleviate pressures on the fauna. Eel passes have been installed in particular to allow fish to move more freely across some of the boundaries present. Land use and Management The land in the area is mainly managed to sustain agriculture. Across the Cheshire Plain, grassland is used for grazing and permanent pasture due to the fertile clay soils. Towards the east of the catchment the soil is less fertile and rough grazing for dairy farming and stock farming is more common. Improved grassland makes up almost half of the land cover of the catchment, so any changes in this land use could have a significant impact on flood risk as well as erosion rates, water quality and biodiversity. Industrial developments have been widespread across the area adjacent to the Mersey in this catchment. These developments include a major oil refinery and chemical factories, the latter having left a legacy of contaminated land in areas such as Runcorn. Some affected areas are near to watercourses. Any further industrial development along this part of catchment should consider the impact on flood risk and water quality. There is a low proportion of woodland cover over the Cheshire Plain as this was previously cleared and used as farmland to take advantage of the fertile soils. The only ancient woodlands that remain are on the sandstone ridges where soils are less fertile and slopes are steep. However, North West Cheshire Forest Strategy aims to increase woodland cover in Cheshire to 30%. Some studies have previously suggested that afforestation can

130 of 139

influence the response of the catchment to rainfall. This is being looked at in the upper Weaver and Dane area. Geology The geology of the Cheshire Plain is mainly comprised of sandstones and mudstones which are covered by drift deposits left behind by retreating glaciers. The only significant aquifers are in the sandstone areas to the west and north of the catchment. To the west the sandstone aquifer is part of the West Cheshire aquifer that extends into the Dee catchment, whereas, the sandstone area to the north is part of the Lower Mersey Basin aquifer. Both of which are exploited for public water supply. The Cheshire sandstone ridge is between 150m and 230m above sea level and acts as a watershed for the River Gowy and Weaver. Further to the east of the Weaver and Gowy catchment the geology changes. Millstone Grits (coarse sandstones) in the north-east of the catchment form the undulating foothills of the Peak District which absorb rainwater easily. Despite this geology, this upland area produces fast run-off into the River Dane catchment, which quickens the flood time to peak in areas like Congleton and Sandbach. In spite of this, limited seasonal variation in groundwater levels is seen within these aquifers. Near surface groundwater levels are generally only found in the low lying valley areas such as near to the River Gowy and River Weaver that lie on the sandstone. There may also be areas of high groundwater levels within the sands and gravels close to rivers. Overall this indicates that groundwater issues should not be a significant source of flooding within the catchment as a whole. National and International Designations There are a number of internationally designated areas of conservation in the Weaver Gowy catchment, as well as numerous habitats and species of interestThe species of interest include Water Voles, Great Crested Newts, Otters, Lapwings, Barn Owls, Bats, Badgers and in the Weaver catchment Freshwater White Clawed Crayfish Partnership Working Within the Catchment, Flood Risk Management Authorities have developed good working relationships with each other and other interested parties. Within the Weaver and Gowy catchment Risk Management include: Shropshire, Cheshire West and Chester, Halton, Cheshire East and Warrington Unitary Authorities along with Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Staffordshire Moorlands District Councils. Dee Valley Water (for the Chester area of the catchment) and United Utilities are the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues. In addition to those partners mentioned RMAs also work closely with the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England. RMAs work closely with the Canal and Rivers Trust which maintains the Weaver Navigation for navigation and flood risk management purposes. This liaison has recently increased due to the forthcoming work in Northwich to reduce flood risk there. Linking with the River Basin Management Plan The North West River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) sets out the measures needed to improve protected areas and to prevent deterioration or improved status in water bodies. The programme of measures in the RBMP includes the measures with agreed funding that will be implemented by 2021. Measures in the Weaver Gowy Management Catchment include Water Company investment programme and catchment level government funded improvements. Examples of Water Company funded investment measures that will deliver WFD improvements include the installation of nutrient reduction and increased treatment at Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) in the Dane, Lower Weaver and Upper Weaver

131 of 139

operational catchments e.g. Alsager, Northwhich, Crewe, Nantwich and Winsford WWTW to name a few of the sites. Other funded measures to improve water quality and help achieve WFD standards include;  the Catchment Wise Intervention Fund project funded by United Utilities in the Upper Weaver operational catchment. This will aim to address some of the water quality issues associated with urban diffuse pollution  the CPAF funded project on Rookery Brook (Upper Weaver operational catchment) which aims to address the water quality issues associated with rural diffuse agricultural activities. Further information on the main programmes of measures can be found in the RBMP. You can access the plan and associated documents though the river basin management web pages (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update). Additional measures are required for water bodies to meet WFD objectives. These measures are summarised in the RBMP as measures to achieve objectives for 2027 and beyond. Although funding has not been secured for these measures, we will work across the Environment Agency and with external partners to identify opportunities to implement these measures. Measures required across the North West River Basin district include those to address diffuse agricultural pollution; diffuse urban pollution; point source discharges; and mitigation measures in heavily modified water bodies. To implement these measures it would require support from a range of sectors including local and central government, agriculture and farming, urban and transport and the water industry. Further information on these measures can be obtained from the Environment Agency at [email protected]

132 of 139

Flood risk maps and statistics Flooding from Rivers and the Sea

Figure 42 National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA) in the Weaver and Gowy catchment

Table 26 Summary flood risk from rivers and sea to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Weaver and Gowy Catchment. River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Risk to people:

Number of people in area: 579,550 2,500 1,750 12,900 <50 Number of services: 1,240 30 20 40 0

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential 80,400 1,350 1,050 1,800 <50 properties: Number of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Length of roads (km): 650 10 <10 10 <10 Length of railway (km): 260 <10 <10 <10 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 143,000 3,600 1,600 2,100 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment:

133 of 139

River and Sea Total in High risk Medium Low risk Very low Catchment risk risk Number of EU designated bathing 0 0 0 0 0 waters within 50m: Number of EPR installations 82 12 3 9 0 within 50m: Area of SAC within area (ha): 1,800 <50 <50 <50 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 2,700 500 <50 200 0 Area of Ramsar site within area 1,150 550 <50 200 0 (ha): Area of World Heritage Site within 0 0 0 0 0 area (ha): Area of SSSI within area (ha): 4,150 800 <50 250 0 Area of Parks and Gardens within 1,850 100 <50 <50 <50 area (ha): Area of Scheduled Ancient 200 <50 <50 <50 0 Monument within area (ha): Number of Listed Buildings within 3,070 90 40 60 <10 area: Number of Licensed water 310 90 10 20 0 abstractions within the area:

Over 17,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Weaver Gowy Catchment, representing approximately 3% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 4,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Weaver Gowy catchment. Approximately 5 % of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Approximately 26% of SSSI sites and 67% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area.

134 of 139

Flooding from Reservoirs

Figure 43 Reservoir flood risk extents in the Weaver Gowy catchment.

Table 27 Summary flood risk from reservoirs to people, economic activity and the natural and historic environment across the Weaver and Gowy Catchment. Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: Number of people in area: 579,550 5,000 Number of services: 1,240 30

Risk to economic activity: Number of non-residential properties: 80,400 1,300 Number of airports: 0 0 Length of roads (km): 650 <10 Length of railway (km): 260 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 143,000 2,450

Risk to the natural and historic environment: Number of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 Number of EPR installations within 50m: 82 6 Area of SAC within area (ha): 1,800 0 Area of SPA within area (ha): 2,700 <50

135 of 139

Reservoirs Total in Catchment Maximum extent of flooding Area of Ramsar site within area (ha): 1,150 <50 Area of World Heritage Site within area (ha): 0 0 Area of SSSI within area (ha): 4,150 200 Area of Parks and Gardens within area (ha): 1,850 <50 Area of Scheduled Ancient Monument within area (ha): 200 <50 Number of Listed Buildings within area: 3,070 90 Number of Licensed water abstractions within the area: 310 30

Over 5,000 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Weaver Gowy Catchment, representing approximately 1% of the total population within the catchment. Approximately 1,300 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Weaver Gowy catchment. Approximately 2% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding from Reservoirs. Approximately 6% of SSSI sites and 4% of Ramsar sites are at risk of flooding in the area. Conclusions for the Weaver and Gowy Catchment As previously said the Weaver Gowy catchment is predominantly rural and low lying in nature and generally responds slowly to rainfall events such that the response time for Northwich is one the slowest for the RBD. The higher ground that surrounds the catchment responds much more quickly, particularly in the Dane sub-catchment to the east. Up to 90% of the total properties listed at flood risk in this catchment are in the key urban areas of Northwich, Congleton and Frodsham. Fluvial flooding mainly affects Northwich from the River Weaver and River Dane and Congleton from the River Dane. There is an extensive flood history within Northwich; the most recent being two recorded flood events in 2012. A Flood defence scheme for Northwich is currently under construction with planned completion in 2016/17. Tidal flood defences and a wetland area were created in the early 2000s to improve protection to the refinery at Stanlow. Localised flooding occurred at Lymm and Thelwall, near Warrington on Boxing Day 2015 due to high flows travelling down from upper catchment areas where flooding was widespread. The Shoreline Management Plan for the North West coast, which was completed in 2010, sets out how coastal erosion can be managed sustainably and also sets the direction for managing coastal flood risk. This Flood Risk Management Plan summarises some of that information but in no way changes the approach developed then with the aid of substantial consultation. More recent climate change projections suggest that future sea level rise considered by the Shoreline Management Plan may be reasonable or conservative. The Environment Agency is currently reviewing the assets in rural areas to establish the flood risk reduction benefits that these activities provide. This includes both watercourse maintenance and pumped assets where flood risk is low and that operations do not result in a flood risk reduction. The Environment Agency have reviewed the operations on Ince and Frodsham Marshes and concluded that the pumping station operations result in a land drainage rather than a flood risk reduction benefit. The Environment Agency is in the process of negotiating the future of these assets with the key stakeholders and landowners for the Marshes. There are bogs, meres and moss land sporadically located across the Weaver Gowy area which could be used for river flow attenuation by acting as flood storage areas and thus helping to manage flood risk. The Environment Agency plan to identify opportunities within 136 of 139

the catchment to utilise or create wetland areas to assist in flood storage during flood events. Congleton Strategic assessment planned for this year 2014/15. Catchment Flood Management Plans published in 2008 considered possible increases in flood levels, extent and risk if climate change were to increase flood flows by 20%. Climate projections since then (UKCP 2009) suggest flood flows could increase by more than that but acknowledge significant uncertainty. The corresponding allowance as detailed in Section 5 of Part A is now for a 30 - 70% increase in flow in North West rivers. This depends on which scenario is used and the date range to be applied (2040 – 2069, or 2070 to 2115). Population increase and urban creep (trend for paving of driveways and similar) will further compound the increased flood risk predicted due to the changing climate. The Environment Agency is willing to work with Local Planning Authorities to help identify areas which may be most affected. However, this work is likely to fall short of extensive hydraulic modelling and detailed mapping of theoretical flood extents. The headline message is therefore Flood risk is increasing, perhaps substantially, so Planners, Emergency Planners, Asset Managers and others will need to mitigate this through a mix of collaborative working, planning policies, use of ‘worst case’ scenarios, development of contingency plans and some detailed analysis. Flood risk from ‘local sources’ and sewers is not included in any detail in this Catchment Summary, or in others. Local sources are surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Flood risk from these sources is managed by Lead Local Flood Authorities Sewer flood risk is managed by United Utilities and is not required to be included in FRMPs. Outside the two significant flood risk areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool & Sefton there is no statutory duty to provide details in the FRMP of local flood risk. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies produced by LLFAs are the principal source of information for local flood risk – see Annex 2; Sources of objectives and measures. Part A of the FRMP includes some information provided voluntarily by LLFAs and United Utilities and so provides a useful overview for all sources of flood risk across the whole River Basin District. Measures across the Weaver and Gowy Catchment Across the Weaver and Gowy Catchment there are 20 measures from earlier plans to manage flood risk; some examples are listed below. For the full list of measures please see Annex 1 of the FRMP. Preventing risk: 1 Measure  In locations where caravans are at risk of flooding, encourage relocation to areas outside of the floodplain. Preparing for risk: 11 Measures  Assess feasibility of providing a flood warning alert service for Winsford given the high level of risk to caravan site and high flood depths. Raise awareness of flood risks through flood awareness campaigns.  Assess flood risk for the medical centre and Manchester Met. University Crewe Campus. Ensure these services adopt appropriate resistance/resilience measures. Ensure local authority and Manchester Met. University Crewe Campus has evacuation and contingency measures in place in case of flooding.  Undertake land use studies as part of strategy (including changes to the pumping regime to the Ince & Frodsham marshes) that would reduce future flood risk for Frodsham and south Runcorn.  Undertake a geomorphological study to identify opportunities for improvements to the modified watercourses whilst still permitting navigation. Managed retreat from rural

137 of 139

defences where not essential (e.g. Upper Gowy, Upper Dane, Peover Eye and River Weaver) to reconnect floodplain to river.  Raise awareness of current and future risks through flood awareness campaigns (2 measures multiple locations) Protecting from risk: 6 Measures  Funding has been received to carry out a flood defence scheme in Northwich, construction is planned to commence in spring 2015.  Wharford Farm Flood Basin, Keckwick Brook, Runcorn - further study is required to determine the most effective solution.  Manage future residual flood risk with flood resistance or resilience measures. If this is not viable, investigate feasibility of maintaining current Standard of Protection into the future.  Carry out a strategy study for Congleton. The focus of the study will be to consider the feasibility the long-term relocation of properties outside of the floodplain as the ultimate way of reducing flood risk. Land management change, culvert redesign/maintenance and improved defences/resilience measures will be assessed as a means of managing flood risk where relocation is not feasible.  Complete Scoping Study for Nantwich Riverside Project Wetland creation (7.5Ha) to enhance environment and contribute towards a flood risk reduction in Nantwich. Recovery and review of risk: 1 Measure  Continue to investigate causes of sewer flooding (including links to river processes) and the standards of service in relation to problems, followed by appropriate remedial works. This will have benefits to the water quality of the area (consistent with the aims of the Water Framework Directive). Work in partnership to identify the theoretical sewer flood risk to properties, sharing this information with others to aid integrated urban drainage. The measures above represent the catchment specific flood risk management measures. Please refer back to Part A of the FRMP to see the measures that apply to the entire or large parts of the RBD.

138 of 139

LIT 10210

139 of 139