DOCSLIB.ORG

36 Highbridge Street, Waltham Abbey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
36 Highbridge Street, Waltham Abbey 36 HIGHBRIDGE STREET, WALTHAM ABBEY Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Statement Alcomax (Investments) Ltd SLR Ref: 408-07833-00001 Version No: 5 October 2018 36 Highbridge Street, Waltham Abbey : FRA and SWDS Filename: 181017_408-07833-00001_36HSWA_FRA_v5 SLR Ref No: 408-07833-00001 October 2018 BASIS OF REPORT This document has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the manpower, timescales and resources devoted to it by agreement with Alcomax (Investments) Ltd. (the Client) as part or all of the services it has been appointed by the Client to carry out. It is subject to the terms and conditions of that appointment. SLR shall not be liable for the use of or reliance on any information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document for any purpose by any person other than the Client. Reliance may be granted to a third party only in the event that SLR and the third party have executed a reliance agreement or collateral warranty. Information reported herein may be based on the interpretation of public domain data collected by SLR, and/or information supplied by the Client and/or its other advisors and associates. These data have been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid. The copyright and intellectual property in all drawings, reports, specifications, bills of quantities, calculations and other information set out in this report remain vested in SLR unless the terms of appointment state otherwise. This document may contain information of a specialised and/or highly technical nature and the Client is advised to seek clarification on any elements which may be unclear to it. Information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document should only be relied upon in the context of the whole document and any documents referenced explicitly herein and should then only be used within the context of the appointment. 36 Highbridge Street, Waltham Abbey : FRA and SWDS Filename: 181017_408-07833-00001_36HSWA_FRA_v5 SLR Ref No: 408-07833-00001 October 2018 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Location .................................................................................................................................... 1 SITE DETAILS ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Existing Site Features ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Topography ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Hydrological Features ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Sewerage and Drainage .................................................................................................................. 5 2.5 Geological and Hydrogeological ..................................................................................................... 5 2.5.1 Geology ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.5.2 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Development Description ............................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Flood Zone Classification ................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Environment Agency Classification.................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Classification ............................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Flood Risk Vulnerability .................................................................................................................. 8 3.4 Anticipated Lifetime of Development ............................................................................................ 8 3.5 Flood Zone Compatibility................................................................................................................ 9 3.6 Sequential Test ................................................................................................................................ 9 3.7 Exception Test ............................................................................................................................... 10 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE ................................................................................... 11 4.1.1 National Planning Policy ................................................................................................................................................. 11 4.1.2 Local Planning Policy ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.3 Other Local Planning Guidance ...................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.4 National Planning Guidance on Climate Change .......................................................................................................... 12 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FLOODING .................................................................................. 14 5.1 Screening Study ............................................................................................................................. 14 5.1.1 Flooding from Rivers and Sea ........................................................................................................................................ 14 5.1.2 Flooding from Surface Water and Overland Flow ........................................................................................................ 14 5.1.3 Flooding from Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.4 Flooding from Sewers and Water Mains ....................................................................................................................... 17 . 36 Highbridge Street, Waltham Abbey : FRA and SWDS Filename: 181017_408-07833-00001_36HSWA_FRA_v5 SLR Ref No: 408-07833-00001 October 2018 5.1.5 Flooding from Canals, Reservoirs and Artificial Sources .............................................................................................. 17 5.1.6 Flooding from Infrastructure Failure ............................................................................................................................. 18 5.1.7 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK ............................................................ 19 6.1 Historic Flooding ........................................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Defended Flood Extents ............................................................................................................... 19 6.3 Defended Flood Levels & Flood Flows ......................................................................................... 20 6.4 Impact of Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 20 6.5 Residual Risk .................................................................................................................................. 21 6.5.1 Residual Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 21 PROPOSED FLOOD MANAGEMENT MEASURES .................................................................. 23 7.1 Finished Floor Levels ..................................................................................................................... 23 7.2 Level Differentials ......................................................................................................................... 23 7.3 Flood Storage Compensation ....................................................................................................... 23 7.4 Flood Conveyance Compensation ................................................................................................ 23 7.5 Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan ................................................................................................ 23 7.6 Safe Refuge ...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HA16 Rivers and Streams London's Rivers and Streams Resource
    HA16 Rivers and Streams Definition All free-flowing watercourses above the tidal limit London’s rivers and streams resource The total length of watercourses (not including those with a tidal influence) are provided in table 1a and 1b. These figures are based on catchment areas and do not include all watercourses or small watercourses such as drainage ditches. Table 1a: Catchment area and length of fresh water rivers and streams in SE London Watercourse name Length (km) Catchment area (km2) Hogsmill 9.9 73 Surbiton stream 6.0 Bonesgate stream 5.0 Horton stream 5.3 Greens lane stream 1.8 Ewel court stream 2.7 Hogsmill stream 0.5 Beverley Brook 14.3 64 Kingsmere stream 3.1 Penponds overflow 1.3 Queensmere stream 2.4 Keswick avenue ditch 1.2 Cannizaro park stream 1.7 Coombe Brook 1 Pyl Brook 5.3 East Pyl Brook 3.9 old pyl ditch 0.7 Merton ditch culvert 4.3 Grand drive ditch 0.5 Wandle 26.7 202 Wimbledon park stream 1.6 Railway ditch 1.1 Summerstown ditch 2.2 Graveney/ Norbury brook 9.5 Figgs marsh ditch 3.6 Bunces ditch 1.2 Pickle ditch 0.9 Morden Hall loop 2.5 Beddington corner branch 0.7 Beddington effluent ditch 1.6 Oily ditch 3.9 Cemetery ditch 2.8 Therapia ditch 0.9 Micham road new culvert 2.1 Station farm ditch 0.7 Ravenbourne 17.4 180 Quaggy (kyd Brook) 5.6 Quaggy hither green 1 Grove park ditch 0.5 Milk street ditch 0.3 Ravensbourne honor oak 1.9 Pool river 5.1 Chaffinch Brook 4.4 Spring Brook 1.6 The Beck 7.8 St James stream 2.8 Nursery stream 3.3 Konstamm ditch 0.4 River Cray 12.6 45 River Shuttle 6.4 Wincham Stream 5.6 Marsh Dykes
    [Show full text]
  • Middlesex University Research Repository an Open Access Repository Of
    Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Read, Simon ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2380-5130 (2017) Cinderella River: The evolving narrative of the River Lee. http://hydrocitizenship.com, London, pp. 1-163. [Book] Published version (with publisher’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/23299/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Plan Respresentations
    29 January 2018 bc Local Plan Regulation 19 Representation Planning Policy Team Epping Forest District Council Civic Offices Ben Thomas 323 High Street Epping Essex CM16 4BZ 33 Margaret Street London W1G 0JD T: +44 (0) 20 7499 8644 savills.com Epping Forest District Council Submission Version Local Plan We write on behalf of Crest Nicholson in relation to the site known as the former Pickfield Nursery at Pick Hill, Waltham Abbey (SLAA Reference SR-0161). Flawed / Absent Local Plan site selection process to-date: Pickfield Nursery was submitted to EFDC in response to the Call for Sites consultation in 2008 and has subsequently been promoted through the current Local Plan process since its inception in 2012. EFDC’s July 2012 SLAA referred to Pickfield Nursery as site SR-0161 but incorrectly identified it as a duplicate site with a much larger parcel (SLAA Reference SR-0020). Representations were then submitted in October 2012 highlighting this mistake. However, despite the submission of detailed representations and subsequent regular liaison with EFDC’s officers (including a positive formal pre-application meeting), EFDC’s Site Selection evidence base published in 2016 discounted Pickfield Nursery prior to Stage 1 of the selection process, once again incorrectly considering it as a duplicate site. Pickfield Nursery was finally acknowledged as an individual site in the Local Plan evidence base in the “Sites for consideration following Regulation 18 consultation” list published in July 2017. However, at the time of writing these representations (26th January 2018, one working day before the Pre-Submission consultation deadline) an assessment of these sites has still not been undertaken and Appendix C1 of the Report on Site Selection (December 2017) has not been completed.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Risk of Non-Point Source Pollution From
    Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11(1), 601613, 2007 Evaluating the risk of non-point source pollution from biosolids: integrated modelling of nutrient losses at field and catchment scales www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/11/601/2007 © Author(s) 2007. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Evaluating the risk of non-point source pollution from biosolids: integrated modelling of nutrient losses at field and catchment scales P.G. Whitehead1, A.L. Heathwaite2, N.J. Flynn1, A.J. Wade1 and P.F. Quinn3 1Aquatic Environments Research Centre, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AB, UK 2Centre for Sustainable Water Management, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK 3Department of Civil Engineering, University of Newcastle, NewcastleUK Email for corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract A semi-distributed model, INCA, has been developed to determine the fate and distribution of nutrients in terrestrial and aquatic systems. The model simulates nitrogen and phosphorus processes in soils, groundwaters and river systems and can be applied in a semi-distributed manner at a range of scales. In this study, the model has been applied at field to sub-catchment to whole catchment scale to evaluate the behaviour of biosolid-derived losses of P in agricultural systems. It is shown that process-based models such as INCA, applied at a wide range of scales, reproduce field and catchment behaviour satisfactorily. The INCA model can also be used to generate generic information for risk assessment. By adjusting three key variables: biosolid application rates, the hydrological connectivity of the catchment and the initial P-status of the soils within the model, a matrix of P loss rates can be generated to evaluate the behaviour of the model and, hence, of the catchment system.
    [Show full text]
  • LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD
    LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD ACC/2423 Reference Description Dates LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD ENGINEER'S OFFICE Engineers' reports and letter books LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD: ENGINEER'S REPORTS ACC/2423/001 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1881 Jan-1883 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/002 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1884 Jan-1886 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/003 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1887 Jan-1889 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/004 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1890 Jan-1893 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/005 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1894 Jan-1896 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/006 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1897 Jan-1899 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/007 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1903 Jan-1903 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/008 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1904 Jan-1904 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/009 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1905 Jan-1905 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/010 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1906 Jan-1906 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 2 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD ACC/2423 Reference Description Dates ACC/2423/011 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1908 Jan-1908 Lea navigation/ stort navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/012 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1912 Jan-1912 Lea navigation/ stort navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/013 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1913 Jan-1913 Lea navigation/ stort navigation
    [Show full text]
  • Waltham Abbey Conservation Area
    WALTHAM ABBEY CONSERVATION AREA 17 17 1 1 22 22 23 23 Drain 12 12 FB Playground HAROLD CRESCENT 109 Drain 105 11 11 21.3m 2 96 96 95 Drain 1 1 El Sub Sta 92 92 TCB HEREWARD CLOSE 1 1 93 Drain CROOKED MILE 90 90 91 7 7 AAbbebbey Fish Ponds 6 6 5 5 The Water 80 80 Tower 76 76 1 3 MILE CLOSE CS 74 74 MILE 6 6 5 5 CROOKED PARKLANDS Drain Drain MILE 64 64 Drain CROOKED 43 2b 2b 6 6 Drain The Lodge 2a 2a 6 6 20.4m PARKLANDS ABBEYVIEW 37 Subway Drain 19 17 Drain Drain St Clement's Harold's Bridge Court (restored) 26 58 58 to to 4 4 5 5 Drain MARGARET 13 FLAGSTAFF ROAD 13 Path CLOSE 10 10 Drain 9 Sluice 52 9 Drain 50 1 1 18 18 8 8 Cornmill Stream Car Parks Old River Lea or Lee 15 15 El Sub Sta 12 Community CANNON MEWS Centre Drain 1 to 4 Riverview 2 2 4 4 Drain Drain SAXON WAY 2 5 5 3 Path 3 1 1 7 to 10 Track 44 30 6 POWDERMILL LANE Ward Bdy 11 to 16 ABBEYVIEW 1 POWDERMILL MEWS 1 17 CR 19 4 4 23 23 1 1 14 25 TO 39 21 23 Gatehouse 32 12 27 31 17 17 33 CROOKED MILE 11 18 25 47 57 29 to 51 41 Path (um) 35 49 Moore House 61 55 to Moat 9 9 53 to 11 11 45 15 15 39 13 13 13 13 Abbey Gardens 22 6363 7 to l0 67 65 FB 69 PLANTAGANET PLACE 11 7 15 Weirs 14 25 25 Fn FB 13 13 Weir 9 9 12 5 5 Sluice 7 79 83 10 3 1 Posts 3 3 1 1 The Rectory 81 85 TCB Moat Highbridge 10 Court Abbey Gardens Ho PH ROMELAND 12 10 se se u u o o H H h h t t i i Ed Ed 8a 8 Stone 12 12 o o t t 1 1 NORTH PLACE 2 11 11 to to 8 1 1 2a 2a 6 10 4 16 14 The Abbey Church FB 8 8 o o t t 2 2 28 2 20 of Waltham Holy Cross 19.8m and St Lawrence Bank 30 19.2m Drain 19 36 13 13 15 15 5a 5a 1 1
    [Show full text]
  • Lee Valley Regional Park Strategic Planning Evidence and Policies
    Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Park Development Framework Strategic Policies April 2019 Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Park Development Framework Strategic Policies Prepared by LUC Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Design 43 Chalton Street Bristol Registered in England Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London Edinburgh Registered Office: Landscape Management NW1 1JD Glasgow 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 Lancaster London NW1 1JD GIS & Visualisation [email protected] Manchester FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper Executive Summary Extending north from East India Dock Basin for 26 miles, and broadly aligned with the natural course of the river Lea through east London and Essex to Ware in Hertfordshire, the Lee Valley Regional Park presents a rich tapestry of award winning international sports venues, attractive parklands and areas of significant ecological importance. The Park attracts over 7 million visits each year largely drawn from London, Hertfordshire and Essex but given the international status of its venues increasingly from across the United Kingdom and abroad. The Regional Park lies at the centre of one of Europe’s largest regeneration areas which includes London 2012 and its Legacy, major developments in the lower Lee Valley, Meridian Water and a range of large schemes coming forward in Epping Forest District and the Borough of Broxbourne. The Authority’s adopted policies date from 2000 and, given the Regional Park’s rapidly changing context, a new approach is required. The Strategic Aims and Policies, Landscape Strategy and Area Proposals included in the Park Development Framework are designed to respond to this changing context to ensure that the Regional Park can maintain its role as an exciting and dynamic destination which caters for leisure, recreation and the natural environment over the next 10-15 years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Navigation of the River Lee (1190 – 1790)
    Edmonton Hundred Historical Society Occasional Paper New Series No. 36 by J.G.L.Burnby and M.Parker. Published 1978 Added to the site by kind permission of Mr Michael Parker THE NAVIGATION OF THE RIVER LEE (1190 – 1790) PREFACE As the men of the river frequently pointed out the Lee is one of the "great rivers of the realm", and it is only fitting that its history should be traced; indeed it is surprising that the task has not been carried out far earlier than this. Regretfully the story of its busiest period in the days of post-canalisation has had to be left to another, later Occasional Paper. The spelling of the name of the river has varied over the centuries. In 1190 it was referred to as "the water of Lin", in the fourteenth century as "La Leye", the cartographer Saxton seems to have been the first to introduce "Lea" to map-makers in 1576, in the eighteenth century it was not infrequently called the "Ware River" but the commonest spelling would seem to be "Lee" and it is to this which we have decided to adhere. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the London Borough of Haringey Libraries panel for their financial assistance in the publication of this paper. Our gratitude also goes to the Marquess of Salisbury for granting permission to reproduce the maps held in the Hatfield House Collection. A number of people have most generously helped us in the production of this paper. Mrs.H.Baker has with her usual expertise drawn the map of the lower reaches of the river, and Mr.Neil Clements is responsible for the charming reproductions of the prints of the Powder Mill at Waltham Abbey and the river at Ware.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Thames Basin Area Profile: Supporting Documents
    National Character 111: Northern Thames Basin Area profile: Supporting documents www.naturalengland.org.uk 1 National Character 111: Northern Thames Basin Area profile: Supporting documents Introduction National Character Areas map As part of Natural England’s responsibilities as set out in the Natural Environment White Paper1, Biodiversity 20202 and the European Landscape Convention3, we are revising profiles for England’s 159 National Character Areas (NCAs). These are areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment. NCA profiles are guidance documents which can help communities to inform their decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain will support the planning of conservation initiatives at a landscape scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage broader partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will also help to inform choices about how land is managed and can change. Each profile includes a description of the natural and cultural features that shape our landscapes, how the landscape has changed over time, the current key drivers for ongoing change, and a broad analysis of each area’s characteristics and ecosystem services. Statements of Environmental Opportunity (SEOs) are suggested, which draw on this integrated information. The SEOs offer guidance on the critical issues, which could help to achieve sustainable growth and a more secure environmental future. 1 The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature, Defra NCA profiles are working documents which draw on current evidence and (2011; URL: www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf) 2 knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Thameswater Tida L T Hames Defence Levels Preliminary Report on River Lee Flows and Levels
    ThamesWater Tida l T hames Defence Levels Preliminary Report on River Lee Flows and Levels August 1987 A R CHI VE : PLEA SE D O N OT DES TR O Y ThamesWater Tidal T ha mes Defe nce Levels Preliminary Report on River Lee Flows and Levels August 1987 Sir William Ha !crow & Partners Ltd Institute of Hydrology PREL IMINARY RIVER LEE ANALYSIS CONTENT S Page No GLOSSARY SUMMA RY 1. INTRODUCT ION 1 1.1 Objectives 1 1.2 The Lower River Lee Sys tem , 1 1.3 Da ta Availability 2 2 . DATA COLLECT ION 3 2.1 Tida l Wa ter Level Data 3 2 .2 Flood Da ta for the Lower Lee and Tribu taries 3 2 .3 Sub-catchment Area s 3 2 .4 Urban Area s 4 3 . TR END ANALYSES 5 3 .1 Water Leve l Trend s 5 3 .2 Flood Trend s 5 4 . FREQUENCY ANA LY SES OF T IDAL WATER LEVELS 6 4 .1 Frequen cy of Tida l Wa ter Leve ls 6 4 .2 Adj ustment to Lee Mouth 6 7 . FLOOD FREQUENC IES AT RIV ER GAUGING STAT IONS ON THE LOW ER LEE 7 5 .1 General Approach 7 5.2 Flood Frequencies Based on Data Ana lyses 7 5.3 Flood Frequencies Using FSR P rocedures 8 5.4 Propo sed Flood Frequenc ies for Ga uging Station s 9 6 . FLOOD FREQUENC IES IN LOW ER LEE CHA NNELS 10 6 .1 Flood Freq uencies in Lee Flood Relie f Channe l 10 6 .2 Flood Frequenc ies in Lee Nav iga tion Chan ne l 11 FIGURES 1.1 Diagramma tic Sys tem o f the Lower Lee 3.1 Flood Trends 4 .1 Concurren t Peak Water Leve ls at Brunsw ick Wha rf and Tow er P ier 5 .1 Feildes Weir Con current Flood s , Instan taneous and Mean Da ily 5.2 Flood Frequency Ana ly ses 5.3 G row th Fac to rs fo r Main Lee 5.4 G rowth Fac tors fo r Low er Lee Tributaries
    [Show full text]
  • Meetin S Atwarrenweir
    Meetin s at Warren Weir EXCLUSIVE, PRIVATE AND TRANQUIL The Warren Weir Suite, complete with private garden and overlooking the River Lea, comprises five individually designed function rooms adaptable for conference or leisure use and licensed for weddings and civil ceremonies, Warren Lounge, business desk, syndicate suite and dedicated leisure facilities. Importance is placed on meeting the flexibility, comfort and support required for every guest at Warren Weir, whether it’s for a major product launch, an annual conference with syndicate meetings or a memorable civil ceremony and reception. The Lea Suite on the ground floor offers the largest of Warren Weir’s conferencing spaces. This columned room with open fireplace, adjacent terrace and direct access from Warren Weir’s catering facilities and kitchen can accommodate up to 280 for banqueting and 340 for a reception. The Ravensbourne Suite on the first floor can seat 330 guests, the Bayford Brook is ideal for syndicates or a more intimate pre-dinner meeting area and Cobbins Brook, which is connected to Bayford Brook by double doors, can seat 160 theatre-style. WWW.ELITEHOTELS.CO.UK/MEETINGS THE ELITE EXPERIENCE WARREN WEIR FLOOR PLANS GROUND FLOOR 1 LEA SUITE (342 m2) 1 2 WARREN LOUNGE 2 (16.98m x 10.89m ) FIRST FLOOR 6 3 RAVENSBOURNE SUITE (21 m x 13.5m ) 4 BAyFORD BROOK (10m x 8.5m ) 3 5 COBBINS BROOK 4 (11.55m x 7.9m plus 7.07m x 6.9m ) 5 6 TURNFORD BROOK (7.55m x 4.9m ) ROOM CAPACITIES AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION s s t g s m t n n g i i o t e n o o n i h k o t R c P n g i e i o d
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Page Distribution Sheet
    Integrated fisheries, RHS and ecological data model for the river Lee Report to Environment Agency NE Thames Area P. M. Scarlett M O’Hare CEH Dorset Winfrith Technology Centre Winfrith Newburgh Dorchester Dorset DT2 8ZD Telephone (01305) 213500 Main Fax (01305) 213600 www.ceh.ac.uk Integrated fisheries, RHS and ecological data model for the River Lee P. M. Scarlett , M O’Hare Project leader: P.Scarlett Report to Environment Agency NE Thames Area CEH Project No: C01019 Date: January 2006 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT ‘In accordance with our normal practice, this report is for the use only of the party to whom it is addressed, and no responsibility is accepted to any third party for the whole or any part of its contents. Neither the whole nor any part of this report or any reference thereto may be included in any published document, circular or statement, nor published or referred to in any way without our written approval of the form and context in which it may appear’ Contents 1 Background 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Objectives 1 1.3 General description of the Lee catchment 3 2 Habitat Quality of the catchment 6 2.1 Habitat Quality and impacts 6 2.2 Land Use 6 2.3 Matrix of high quality and degraded sites 6 2.4 Substrates and flows 7 2.5 Stream Power 8 2.6 Fine Sediment Sources and bank Sensitivity Index 8 2.7 Nuisance and invasive species 8 3 Analysis of fish data 12 3.1 RHS data and its relationship with guild composition 12 3.2 RHS and fisheries data 17 3.3 Identification of suitable sites for guilds using RHS variables
    [Show full text]