DOCSLIB.ORG

London Borough of Waltham Forest Level 1 SFRA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London Borough of Waltham Forest Level 1 SFRA London Borough of Waltham Forest Level 1 SFRA Final Report Project number: 60577135 October 2018 London Borough of Waltham Forest Level 1 SFRA FINAL Project number: 60577135 Quality information Prepared by Checked by Approved by Hannah Booth Emily Craven Sarah Kelly Graduate Water Associate Director, Water Regional Director, Water Consultant Sarah Waite Hydrologist Consultant Revision History Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position 01 July 2018 Draft Report for 26 July 2018 Sarah Kelly Regional Director, client comment Water 02 August 2018 Final report 02 October 2018 Sarah Kelly Regional Director, Water AECOM i London Borough of Waltham Forest Level 1 SFRA FINAL Project number: 60577135 Prepared for: London Borough of Waltham Forest Council Prepared by: AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd Midpoint, Alencon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP United Kingdom T: +44(0)1256 310200 aecom.com © 2018 AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. AECOM ii London Borough of Waltham Forest Level 1 SFRA FINAL Project number: 60577135 Table of Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. v Glossary of Terms ...................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary ................................................................................................... x 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Approach to Flood Risk Management ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Flood Risk Policy and Guidance ................................................................................................. 4 2. Assessing Flood Risk in Waltham Forest ........................................................ 6 2.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Topography ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 River Network ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.5 Fluvial Flood Risk ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Surface water flood risk ............................................................................................................ 11 2.7 Geology and Groundwater flood risk ........................................................................................ 12 2.8 Sewer Flood Risk ..................................................................................................................... 13 2.9 Risk of Flooding from Reservoirs .............................................................................................. 14 2.10 Historic Flood Events ................................................................................................................ 14 2.11 Flood Risk Management Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 14 2.12 Surface Water Management Schemes- Options Appraisal ....................................................... 15 3. Impact of Climate Change ............................................................................. 17 3.1 Peak River Flow ....................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Climate change for Surface Water flow .................................................................................... 19 4. Avoiding Flood Risk – Risk Based Approach to Planning .............................. 20 4.1 Sequential Approach ................................................................................................................ 20 4.2 Applying Sequential Test – Plan Making ................................................................................... 20 4.3 Applying Sequential Test – Planning Applications .................................................................... 25 4.4 Exception Test .......................................................................................................................... 27 5. Managing and Mitigating Flood Risk through Spatial Planning and Development Control ..................................................................................... 28 5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 28 5.2 Design Flood Level ................................................................................................................... 28 5.3 Development Layout and Sequential Approach ........................................................................ 28 5.4 Finished Floor Levels ............................................................................................................... 28 5.5 Flood Resistance ‘Water Exclusion Strategy’ ........................................................................... 29 5.6 Flood Resilience ‘Water Entry Strategy’ ................................................................................... 30 5.7 Safe Access/ Egress ................................................................................................................. 31 5.8 Safe Refuge.............................................................................................................................. 31 5.9 Floodplain Compensation Storage ........................................................................................... 31 5.10 Flood Voids ............................................................................................................................... 32 5.11 Car Parks.................................................................................................................................. 32 5.12 Flood Routing ........................................................................................................................... 33 5.13 Riverside Development ............................................................................................................ 33 5.14 Flood Warning Areas ................................................................................................................ 34 5.15 Surface Water Management ..................................................................................................... 34 5.16 Natural Flood Management ...................................................................................................... 34 5.17 Recommendations for Policy and Practice ............................................................................... 35 6. Guidance for Developers ............................................................................... 36 6.1 What is a Flood Risk Assessment? .......................................................................................... 36 AECOM iii London Borough of Waltham Forest Level 1 SFRA FINAL Project number: 60577135 6.2 When is a Flood Risk Assessment required? ........................................................................... 36 6.3 How detailed should a FRA be? ............................................................................................... 36 6.4 What needs to be addressed in a Flood Risk Assessment? ..................................................... 37 6.5 Flood Risk Assessment Checklist ............................................................................................. 38 6.6 Pre-application Advice .............................................................................................................. 40 7. Recommendations for Policy and Practice .................................................... 42 7.1 Strategic Planning .................................................................................................................... 42 7.2 Development Control ................................................................................................................ 43 7.3 Flood Defences ........................................................................................................................ 44 7.4 Sustainable Drainage Systems................................................................................................. 45 7.5 Emergency Planning ................................................................................................................ 45 7.6 Water Environment ..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enfield Society News, 214, Summer 2019
    N-o 214, Summer 2019 London Mayor voices concerns over Enfield’s proposals for the Green Belt in the new Local Plan John West ur lead article in the Spring Newsletter referred retention of the Green Belt is also to assist in urban to the Society’s views on the new Enfield Local regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and Plan. The consultation period for the plan ended other urban land. The Mayor, in his draft new London in February and the Society submitted comments Plan has set out a strategy for London to meet its housing Orelating to the protection of the Green Belt, need within its boundaries without encroaching on the housing projections, the need for master planning large Green Belt”. sites and the need to develop a Pubs Protection Policy. Enfield’s Draft Local Plan suggested that Crews Hill was The Society worked closely with Enfield RoadWatch and a potential site for development. The Mayor’s the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) to observations note that, as well as the issue of the Green produce a document identifying all the potential Belt, limited public transport at Crews Hill with only 2 brownfield sites across the Borough. That document trains per hour and the limited bus service together with formed part of the Society’s submission. the distance from the nearest town centre at Enfield Town The Enfield Local plan has to be compatible with the mean that Crews Hill is not a sustainable location for Mayor’s London Plan. We were pleased to see that growth.
    [Show full text]
  • © Georgina Green ~ Epping Forest Though the Ages
    © Georgina Green ~ Epping Forest though the Ages Epping Forest Preface On 6th May 1882 Queen Victoria visited High Beach where she declared through the Ages "it gives me the greatest satisfaction to dedicate this beautiful Forest to the use and enjoyment of my people for all time" . This royal visit was greeted with great enthusiasm by the thousands of people who came to see their by Queen when she passed by, as their forefathers had done for other sovereigns down through the ages . Georgina Green My purpose in writing this little book is to tell how the ordinary people have used Epping Fo rest in the past, but came to enjoy it only in more recent times. I hope to give the reader a glimpse of what life was like for those who have lived here throughout the ages and how, by using the Forest, they have physically changed it over the centuries. The Romans, Saxons and Normans have each played their part, while the Forest we know today is one of the few surviving examples of Medieval woodland management. The Tudor monarchs and their courtiers frequently visited the Forest, wh ile in the 18th century the grandeur of Wanstead House attracted sight-seers from far and wide. The common people, meanwhile, were mostly poor farm labourers who were glad of the free produce they could obtain from the Forest. None of the Forest ponds are natural . some of them having been made accidentally when sand and gravel were extracted . while others were made by Man for a variety of reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LONDON GAZETTE, 9Ra MAY 1975 6069
    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 9ra MAY 1975 6069 This application is to replace previous Permit No. posed scheme of artificial recharge of the ground-water 28/39/303120 For the same amount of abstraction. in the Lower Lee. Further details of the application are: in the Parish of A copy of the draft licence and of the plans deposited Chertsey, above. with if may be inspected free of charge at the office of the A copy of the application and of any map, plan or Solicitor to the Authority at Brettenham House (Third other document submitted with it may be inspected free Floor), Lancaster Place, London, WC2E 7EN, and at the of charge at Anningsley Park Farm Office at all reasonable office of the Divisional Manager, Lea Division, " The hours during the period beginning on 1st May 1975, and Grange", Crossbrook Street, Waltham Cross, Hertford- ending oh 5th June 1975. shire, EN8 8LX, at all reasonable hours during the period Any person who wishes to make representations about beginning 9th May 1975 and ending on 13th June 1975. the application should do so in writing to the Divisional Any person wishing to make representations about the Manager, Thames Conservancy Division, Thames Water draft licence should do so in writing to the Solicitor to Authority, Nugent House, Vastem Road, Reading, RG1 the Authority at Brettenham House, Lancaster Place, 9DB, before the end of the said period. London, WC2E 7EN, before the end of the said period. E. R. Hayes, on behalf of Mr. W. M. Vernon. After the expiry of the said period the Authority will be entitled to pass a resolution by virtue of which a 28th April 1975.
    [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 Forest Archaeological Priority Area Appraisal October 2020
    London Borough of Waltham Forest Archaeological Priority Areas Appraisal October 2020 DOCUMENT CONTROL Author(s): Maria Medlycott, Teresa O’Connor, Katie Lee-Smith Derivation: Origination Date: 15/10/2020 Reviser(s): Tim Murphy Date of last revision: 23/11/2020 Date Printed: 23/11/2020 Version: 2 Status: Final 2 Contents 1 Acknowledgments and Copyright ................................................................................... 6 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7 3 Explanation of Archaeological Priority Areas .................................................................. 8 4 Archaeological Priority Area Tiers ................................................................................ 10 5 History of Waltham Forest Borough ............................................................................. 13 6 Archaeological Priority Areas in Waltham Forest.......................................................... 31 6.1 Tier 1 APAs Size (Ha.) .......................................................................................... 31 6.2 Tier 2 APAs Size (Ha.) .......................................................................................... 31 6.3 Tier 3 APAs Size (Ha.) .......................................................................................... 32 6.4 Waltham Forest APA 1.1. Queen Elizabeth Hunting Lodge GV II* .................... 37 6.5 Waltham Forest APA 1.2: Water House ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Management Plan London Borough Of
    SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAIN LONDON LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD FINAL DRAFT v2.0 Quality Management Quality Management DOCUMENT INFORMATION Title: Surface Water Management Plan for London Borough of Enfield Owner: Ian Russell Version: v3.0 Status: Final Project Number: CS/046913 File Name: DLT2_GP4_Enfield_SWMP Final_V3.0 REVISION HISTORY Date of Summary of Changes Completed By Version Issue Initial draft SI 12/06/2011 1.0 Final Draft SI 01/08/2011 2.0 Final IR 05/01/2012 3.0 AUTHOR Name Organisation and Role Stephanie Ip Senior Consultant, Capita Symonds Ruth Farrar Consultant, Capita Symonds APPROVALS Name Title Signature Date Ruth Goodall Director, Capita Symonds Principal Consultant, Capita Michael Arthur Symonds Ian Russell Senior Engineer, LB Enfield Kevin Reid Programme Manager DISTRIBUTION Name Organisation and Role Ian Russell Senior Engineer, LB Enfield Kevin Reid Programme Manager, GLA RELATED DOCUMENTS Date of Doc Ref Document Title Author Version Issue i Acknowledgements Acknowledgements A number of people and organisations outside Enfield Council have contributed to this Surface Water Management Plan. Their assistance is greatly appreciated, and in particularly inputs and information provided by: • The British Geological Survey • British Waterways • Drain London Group 4 boroughs: o London Borough of Haringey o London Borough of Hackney o London Borough of Waltham Forest o London Borough of Newham o London Borough of Tower Hamlets • The Environment Agency • The Greater London Authority • London Councils • The London Fire Brigade • Network Rail • Thames Water • Transport for London and London Underground ii Executive Summary Executive Summary This document forms the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the London Borough (LB) of Enfield.
    [Show full text]
  • Epping Forest
    Committee(s) Dated: Epping Forest Consultative 13 06 2018 Epping Forest and Commons 09 07 2018 Subject: Public Epping Forest - Superintendent’s Update for December 2017 to March 2018 (SEF 25/18) Report of: For Information Superintendent of Epping Forest Report author: Paul Thomson – Superintendent of Epping Forest Summary This purpose of this report is to summarise the Epping Forest Division’s activities across December 2017 to March 2018. Of particular note was the significant progress with the passage of the City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Act 2018 which gained Royal Assent on the 15 March 2018; a major response to the Epping Forest District Council on the soundness of the proposed Local Plan, a report on the main modifications to the London Borough of Redbridge’s Local Plan recognising comments by the City Corporation; the successful reorganisation of the Chingford Golf Course and Wanstead Flats Sport turf teams; initial savings of almost £6,000 on the first 3 months of the revised waste management contract; the completion of 222.5 acres of wood pasture restoration and the birth of 28 calves through winter calving. Recommendation(s) Consultative Committee Members are asked to: Note the report. Main Report Staff and Volunteers 1. Fixed term contract arrangements for the Policy Officer contract working on the Epping Forest Management Plan and an Assistant Forest Keeper have now been completed. Following a promotion to the Markets Directorate the Visitor Operations Manager has left Epping Forest. 2. Recruitment for the permanent staff at Wanstead Flats and Chingford Golf Course is complete. Three members of staff were assimilated to a new role, two members of staff with short term contracts have been appointed on a permanent basis and one new Green/Grounds Keeper has been appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • AD06.02 Environmental Statement Volume 2 Appendices 11.1 to 11.3
    NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY NORTH LONDON HEAT AND POWER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: VOLUME 2 APPENDICES 11.1 TO 11.3 AD06.02 NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY NORTH LONDON HEAT AND POWER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: VOLUME 2 APPENDIX 11.1 WATER RESOURCES AND FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AD06.02 North London Waste Authority North London Heat and Power Project Environmental Statement Volume 2 Appendix 11.1 Water Resources and Flood Risk Assessment Methodology AD06.02 The Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Regulation 5 (2)(a) Issue October 2015 Amec Foster Wheeler E&I UK Ltd This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Amec Foster Wheeler excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. North London Waste Authority North London Heat and Power Project Environmental Statement Volume 2 Appendix 11.1 Water Resources and Flood Risk Assessment Methodology Contents Page 1 Water Resources and Flood Risk Assessment Methodology 2 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Engagement 2 1.3 Legislation and guidance 10 1.4 Baseline conditions
    [Show full text]
  • London Effluent Reuse SRO July 2021
    Strategic regional water resource solutions: Preliminary feasibility assessment Gate One Submission for: London Effluent Reuse SRO July 2021 i Contents 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1 2 Solution Description ........................................................................................................ 3 3 Outline Project Plan ......................................................................................................... 5 4 Technical Information ..................................................................................................... 9 5 Environmental and Drinking Water Quality Considerations................................................ 13 6 Initial Outline of Procurement and Operation Strategy ..................................................... 17 7 Planning Considerations ................................................................................................ 20 8 Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................... 22 9 Key Risks and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 24 10 Option Cost/Benefits Comparison .................................................................................... 28 11 Impacts on Current Plan ................................................................................................. 32 12 Board Statement and Assurance ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES EPPING FOREST CLA/077 Page 1 Reference Description Dates STATUTORY and LEGAL PAPERS RELATING TO
    LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 EPPING FOREST CLA/077 Reference Description Dates STATUTORY AND LEGAL PAPERS RELATING TO PARLIAMENTARY BILLS AND ACTS CLA/077/A/01/001 Epping Forest Act 1871 1865 - 1871 Includes: report of the Parliamentary Committee (1871); petition against the Bill (1871); supporting documentation (1871); official notice of public meeting held by Epping Forest Commissioners (May 1872); report of the Open Spaces Committee (1865) inscribed 'Mr Manisty'; Report entitled "Rights of Crown in Tidal Lands and Epping Forest" (1866) 1 file Former reference: CLA/077/01/001/005 CLA/07/01/001/003 Box 1.5 Box 1.3 CLA/077/A/01/002 Epping Forest Act 1872 1872 Includes: copy of Bill; petitions against Bill; proof of the City Solicitor 1 file Former reference: CLA/077/01/001/003 Box 1.3 CLA/077/A/01/003 Epping Forest (no 1) Bill 1872 1872 Includes: copy of Bill; report; petitions against the Bill; memoranda on the amended Bill (2 copies) and reasons against a second reading 1 file Former reference: CLA/077/01/001/005 Box 1.5 CLA/077/A/01/004 Epping Forest (no 1) Bill 1872 and Metage on 1872 Grain (Port of London) Bill 1872: combined reports Includes: petitions against the Bills; minutes of evidence; reports 1 file Former reference: CLA/077/01/001/004 Box 1.4 CLA/077/A/01/005 Metage on Grain (Port of London) Act 1872 1864 - 1872 File includes: copy of Act with manuscript annotations; 2 copies of Bill with manuscript annotations; petitions; minutes of proceedings; reports and correspondence concerning rights of Metage; copy and amended
    [Show full text]
  • 199, Autumn 2015 the Enfield Society Rescues Enfield’S Entries in Open House London 2015
    Enfield Society News No. 199, Autumn 2015 The Enfield Society rescues Enfield’s entries in Open House London 2015 As described in our President’s column on page 5, the Enfield Society has stepped in to ensure that buildings of architectural interest in Enfield are not left out of the annual London-wide showcase of architecture and urban design which is “Open House London”, on 19th and 20th September. The Borough Council decided this year that they could not afford the £4000 contribution towards the costs of the event, so we agreed at short notice that we would pay it. We suggested several buildings that might be added to the list of those that were open in previous years, but there was not time to make arrangements with all of them. Because of our contribution we shall receive a supply of the guide booklet for the whole event, and we will be able to make free copies available at our Town Show stand as well as providing some for distribution through local libraries. Because Open House London is concerned with architecture and urban design, buildings and structures to be included are chosen on the basis of “good design, old and new”, having regard to appearance and function rather than any historical connections. The current list of those that will be open is shown below. Details of opening times will be given in the guide booklet and on the Open House London website at www.openhouselondon.org.uk, which will also include any last minute additions which were too late for the printed booklet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact on Receiving Waters of Pharmaceutical Residues and Antibiotic Resistant Faecal Bacteria Found in Urban Waste
    The impact on receiving waters of pharmaceutical residues and antibiotic resistant faecal bacteria found in urban waste water effluents Thesis submitted to Middlesex University in partial fulfilment of the award of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree By Rebecca Tuckwell Supervisors: Prof. Mike Revitt, Prof. Hemda Garelick, Dr. Huw Jones Middlesex University, London, UK October, 2014 i Abstract Pharmaceuticals intended for human use are frequently detected in the aquatic environment. This is predominantly from their excretion following ingestion and subsequent discharge in domestic sewage. Wastewater treatment provides an opportunity to control their release to surface waters however, their removal is often incomplete. This thesis addresses this pharmaceutical pathway and the potential impact on the aquatic environment. The progress of bezafibrate, carbamazepine, ciprofloxacin and clarithromycin were monitored through the treatment stages (screened sewage, settled sewage and final effluent) of a large urban wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and in surface waters up- stream and down-stream of the effluent discharge point. All except clarithromycin were detected in the screened sewage (369 – 2696 ng/L). Reductions in the pharmaceutical concentrations throughout the WWTP (22.5 – 94.3 %) indicate the removal of these compounds is variable. Bezafibrate and carbamazepine were observed at higher concentrations (67.5 - 305.5 ng/L) in surface water down-stream of the effluent discharge point compared to up-stream (31.0 – 116.7 ng/L). The presence of antibiotics in the environment may contribute to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance. The second part of this thesis monitors the prevalence of resistant faecal bacteria through WWTPs and in surface waters.
    [Show full text]