Opportunity Peterborough and Peterborough City Council Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 2212959 Aston Cross Business Village 50 Rocky Lane Aston Birmingham B6 5RQ United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)121 333 4466

Fax: +44 (0)121 333 4275 www.hyderconsulting.com

Opportunity Peterborough and Peterborough City Council Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 FINAL DRAFT*

*This report has not yet received sign-off from key stakeholders

Author J Chatterton, R Gunasekara, R Tufnell, C Wilson

Checker O Davies, R Gunasekara

Approver P Harker

Report No 5004-BM01234-BMR-01

Date Original October 2009 Amended February 2010.

This report has been prepared for Opportunity Peterborough and Peterborough City Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Level 2 SFRA dated November 2008. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2212959) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page i x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc CONTENTS

i. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7 PART 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 1 Background and Scope of Works ...... 10 2 Report Structure...... 12 3 Study Area ...... 14 4 Planning Policy and Guidance...... 16 4.1 National Planning Policy ...... 16 4.2 Regional Planning Policy ...... 17 4.3 Local Planning Policy...... 19 5 Other Policy and Guidance...... 23 5.1 Integrated Growth Study ...... 23 5.2 Catchment Flood Management Plans...... 23 5.3 Padholme Flood Protection Strategy...... 23 5.4 Regional Flood Risk Appraisal ...... 24 5.5 Water Cycle Study ...... 24 5.6 Emergency Planning and the Civil Contingencies Act...... 24 PART 2 HISTORICAL APPROACH TO SITE SELECTION ...... 27 6 Peterborough: Development Needs ...... 28 6.1 Introduction ...... 28 6.2 Retail and Services ...... 29 6.3 Housing...... 29 6.4 Employment Opportunities...... 29 7 Peterborough Integrated Growth Study (IGS): Development Opportunities and Constraints ...... 31 7.1 Introduction ...... 31 7.2 Development of Conceptual Options...... 33 7.3 Development of the Spatial Options...... 37 7.4 Final Evaluation ...... 48 7.5 Consultants Recommended Option ...... 48 8 Addressing Flooding Issues in Peterborough Site Selection...... 51 8.1 Overview...... 51 8.2 Defining The Evidence Base...... 52 9 Level 1 Application of the Sequential Test: Flood Zone 1 Sites ...... 56 9.1 Introduction ...... 56 9.2 Overview of All Potential Strategic Sites in Flood Zone 1 ...... 56 9.3 Other Site Specific Development Constraints for Urban Extensions...61 Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page ii Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 9.4 Quantum of Growth Summary...... 66 10 Level 1 Application of the Sequential Test: Sites Outside Flood Zone 1...... 68 10.1 Initial Assessment...... 68 10.2 Predominantly Employment Urban Extensions ...... 70 10.3 Key City Centre Sites ...... 74 10.4 Summary ...... 94 11 IGS Recommended Option & Part 2 Conclusions...... 95 11.1 Summary of Final Growth Quantum by Flood Zone ...... 96 PART 3 LEVEL 2 STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 97 12 Update on Planning and Site Information Received Subsequently to Part 2...... 98 12.1 The Local Development Framework...... 98 12.2 City Centre Area Action Plan: Consultants Recommended Option .... 99 12.3 Updates to site information...... 99 13 Level 2 SFRA Methodology ...... 100 13.1 Consultation and Data Collection ...... 100 13.2 Key Strategic Development Sites ...... 100 13.3 Model Build and Extent...... 100 13.4 Model Parameters ...... 101 13.5 Flood Hazard Analysis...... 103 13.6 Assessment of Surface Water Flood Risk ...... 104 13.7 Assumptions and Limitations...... 105 14 Outputs ...... 107 14.1 Flood Defence Condition Appraisal ...... 107 14.2 Flood Risk Management Measures...... 109 14.3 Flood Hazard Mapping ...... 109 14.4 Critical Drainage Areas...... 110 14.5 Application of Outputs ...... 111 15 Summary of Level 2 Findings and Assessments...... 112 PART 4 UPDATED SEQUENTIAL AND EXCEPTION TESTS ...... 113 16 Updates to Sites’ Flood Risk Status ...... 114 16.1 Potential Sites that were Wholly or Predominantly in Flood Zone 1 . 114 16.2 Sites That Were Partially or Predominantly in Flood Zones 2 and 3 115 16.3 Sites That Were Partially or Predominantly in Flood Zones 2 and 3 116 16.4 Sequential Tests for Key City Centre Sites...... 123 17 Exception Test Process ...... 141 17.1 Introduction to the Exception Test ...... 141 17.2 Exception Test for South Bank: Fletton Quays...... 143 18 Sequential Test Conclusions ...... 155 18.1 Site Outcomes...... 155 18.2 Growth Quantum ...... 156 PART 5 WIDER FLOOD RISK AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ...... 159 19 Wider Catchment and Key Risks to Peterborough ...... 160 19.1 Catchment Context...... 160 19.2 Key Risks ...... 162

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page iii x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 20 Core Spatial Strategy and CCAAP Inputs ...... 164 20.1 Overtopping and Breach Hazard Mapping ...... 164 20.2 Flood Risk Management Strategy - Policy Objectives and Further Studies ...... 166 21 Policy Topic Area 1 - Sequential Approach to Locating Development...... 167 21.1 Allocation of Strategic Sites ...... 167 21.2 Additional Site Allocations...... 168 21.3 Existing Development ...... 173 21.4 Flood Zones Updates...... 173 22 Policy Topic Area 2 - Flood Risk Management Opportunities...... 174 23 Policy Topic Area 3 - Surface Water Management and Use of SUDS ...... 179 24 Policy Topic Area 4 - Management of Residual Risk ...... 193 24.1 Maintenance of Raised Defences ...... 193 24.2 Defacto Defences...... 193 24.3 Failure of Flood Defences ...... 194 24.4 Culvert Blockage...... 194 24.5 Emergency Planning...... 195 24.6 Flood Warning and Evacuation Plans ...... 196 25 Policy Topic Area 5 - Maintenance and Inspection Regimes ...... 197 25.2 Emergency Planning...... 197 26 Policy Topic Area 6 – Developer Guidance on Site Specific FRAs and Development Design...... 198 26.1 General ...... 198 26.2 Fletton Quays...... 199 26.3 Courts and Police Station...... 199 26.4 North Embankment ...... 200 26.5 Rivergate...... 200 26.6 Fengate 2...... 201 26.7 Carbon Challenge Site...... 201 26.8 Railworld ...... 202 26.9 Great Haddon ...... 203 26.10 Norwood...... 204 26.11 Redbrick Farm ...... 204 26.12 Regional Freight Interchange...... 205 27 Policy Topic Area 7 - Windfall Sites...... 206 PART 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....207 28 Conclusions ...... 208 29 Recommendations ...... 211 REFERENCES...... 213

A – IGS Outputs

B – Flood Hazard Mapping

C – Flood Hazard Mapping – City Centre Area

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page iv Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc D – Flood Risk Management

E – Surface Water Management

F – Updates for Sequential Tests

G – Data Register

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page v x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc

i. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A detailed Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for Peterborough was completed in 2005 in line with Planning Policy Guidance 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPG25)1; this was then updated in January 2008 to comply with additional requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25)2 published in December 2006. The update was only completed to the Level 1 SFRA stage3 and was used to inform the development of Peterborough City Council’s (PCC) Core Strategy Preferred Options Report4.

This study provides a Level 2 SFRA for Peterborough to provide more detailed information than the Level 1 SFRA about current and future flood risks in Peterborough, specifically with regards to identified key proposed development sites. This work has been undertaken in order to inform the latter stages of the Core Strategy and ensure that the latest flood risk data is taken into consideration in the site selection process before the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD) is formally submitted to the Secretary of State. The Level 2 SFRA recognises that the most effective form of flood risk management is through the risk avoidance in the first place through the application of Sequential Approach and Sequential Test according to flood risk management hierarchy presented in PPS25.

Assess Avoid Substitute Control Mitigate

Before presenting the latest modelling outputs and the methods used in this document, the consideration of growth sites in the Core Strategy Preferred Options is explained and the evidence of the sequential approach to development taken by the Integrated Growth Study5 including the Sequential Test results and the need for applying the Exception Test, to achieve regeneration and wider sustainability considerations of the city centre, is identified. Updates to the Environment Agency’s flood zones, detailed overtopping and hazard mapping, climate change analysis and additional assessments undertaken during this study were fed back into the initial Sequential Test findings, to confirm updated status of Peterborough’s strategic development sites and then to fully apply the Exception Test where applicable. This included the provision of suitable guidance and policies for those sites that are at risk of flooding but have satisfied all requirements of the Exception Test, so that they can be developed without risk to people and property during the design life of the anticipated developments.

In addition, several wider flood risk and surface water management policies and measures are recommended at strategic and site specific levels to reduce the risk of flooding across Peterborough and downstream areas. Positive flood risk and surface water management planning and PPS25 Flood risk management hierarchy have been fundamental in making these recommendations whilst recognising the catchment wide and local needs of Peterborough.

This Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment has demonstrated how Peterborough has complied with Planning Policy Statement 25 whilst aiming to become the UK’s Environmental Capital through its development planning process and its role in flood risk and surface water management process, by aspiring to reduce current and future levels of risk through a raft of positive measures.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 7 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc (This page has been left blank intentionally)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 8 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc PART 1 INTRODUCTION

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 9 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 1 Background and Scope of Works

Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPS25)2 requires Local Planning Authorities to take a sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas and sets out a framework for managing flood risk through the spatial planning process. The overarching aim of PPS25 is to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages of the planning process by adopting a sequential approach in order to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. It is a requirement of PPS25 that Local Planning Authorities prepare appropriately detailed Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs).

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (HCL) was appointed by Opportunity Peterborough (OP) and Peterborough City Council (PCC) in November 2008 to undertake a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for the Peterborough Unitary Authority area This builds on the earlier Level 1 SFRA work carried out by Royal Haskoning3 in January 2008 and the Outline Report of the Water Cycle Study6 prepared by HCL in January 2009.

In order to provide a firm evidence basis for the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF) for Peterborough City Council and to demonstrate the consistency of work undertaken through the recently published Integrated Growth Strategy5 with the guidance set out in PPS25, this study has also undertaken a Sequential Test for major sites identified as potentially suitable for development in the Core Strategy.

The requirement for the Level 2 SFRA that follows and the recent updates to the Flood Zones by the Environment Agency, will enable the full application of the Sequential and Exception Tests (see Parts 3 and 4 of this report for further information) to be undertaken in order to fully assess the flood hazards of those sites located in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and for appropriate site specific flood mitigation measures to be determined whilst also addressing climate change impacts.

Table 1-1 lists the outputs required from a Level 2 SFRA, as set out in PPS25 and highlights how these will, or have been met by this report and the already published Level 1 SFRA3 in January 2008.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 10 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Required Output Demonstration

An appraisal of the current condition of flood defence This report, Section 14.1 infrastructure and of likely future flood management policy with regard to its maintenance and upgrade

An appraisal of the probability and consequences of This report, Section 14.2 and 14.3 overtopping or failure of flood risk management infrastructure, including an appropriate allowance for climate change

Definition and mapping of the functional floodplain in locations Level 1 SFRA Section 4 and mapping where this is required

Maps showing the distribution of flood risk across all flood Level 1 SFRA mapping zones from all sources of flooding taking climate change into This report, Section14 account

Guidance on appropriate policies for sites which satisfy parts a) This report, Section 16, 17, 19 and 20 and b) of the Exception Test, and requirements to consider at the planning application stage to pass part c) of the Exception Test

Guidance on the preparation of Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) This report, Section 20 and 21 for sites of varying risk across the Flood Zones, including information about the use of SUDS techniques

Identification of the location of critical drainage areas and This report, Section 14.4 and 14.5 identification of the need for Surface Water Management Plans

Meaningful recommendations to inform policy, development This report, Section 15, 20, 21, 22 and 23 control and technical issues

Table 1-1 Level 2 SFRA Outputs

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 11 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 2 Report Structure

The report has been broken down into the following sections to enable readers to locate the relevant information.

Part 1 Sections 1 to 5 Introduces the study area, planning policy context, flood risk management and SFRA process.

Part 2 Sections 6 to 11 Discusses the historical need for development in the study area and demonstrates the application of sequential approach and sequential test for the development sites based on the Level 1 SFRA3 and Integrated Growth Study5 outputs.

Part 3 Sections 12 to 15 Sets out additional data sources, methodology used and key outputs of this study. Amongst others it uses the models and outputs from the parallel study, Hazard Mapping – River Nene Peterborough, commissioned by the Environment Agency.

Part 4 Sections 16 to 18 Demonstrates the status of the Sequential Tests presented in Part 2 based on the revised flood zones received from the Environment Agency for the study area during the course of this Level 2 assessment. It then demonstrates the application of Exception Test using this Level 2 SFRA modelling outputs.

Part 5 Sections 19 to 27 Sets out strategic and site specific flood risk and surface water management measures for the key development sites.

Part 6 Section 28 and 29 Summarises the overall conclusions and recommendations.

Appendices

A Reproduces the IGS and Core Strategy Outputs relevant to the sequential test process

B Presents flood hazard mapping outputs from the Level 2 SFRA related to potential Integrated Growth Study identified strategic sites

C Presents flood hazard mapping outputs from the Level 2 SFRA related to City Centre Area Action Plan Sites

D Provides flood risk information and existing flood risk management measures and CFMP policy units

E Shows critical drainage areas, water quality constraints, green grid strategy and flood risk and surface water management policy units proposed by Level 2 SFRA

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 12 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc F Gives status updates for sequential test results within Section 16 based on the latest Environment Agency Flood Zones

G Contains the data register

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 13 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 3 Study Area

The City of Peterborough is located in the East of England as illustrated in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 Peterborough Location The River Nene intersects the urban area of Peterborough; the river is fluvial as far as the Dog in a Doublet sluice, beyond which it is tidal to the point where it joins The Wash. The Stanground Lode flows north through south Peterborough to join the Nene. Outside the urban area, the land is crossed by an extensive network of drainage ditches predominantly managed by the Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs). River Welland also flows at the northern limit of the Peterborough City boundary towards Spalding where it becomes tidal at Fulney Lock, Spalding. A schematic of the study area is shown in Figure 3-2

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 14 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 3-2 Study Area Schematic Much of the urban area of Peterborough is less than 10m above sea level whilst the washlands and the vast agricultural land to the east are at or below sea level. Flooding is therefore an important local issue particularly with regard to addressing additional flood risks anticipated as a result of climate change relative to rainfall patterns, peak river flows and sea level rise.

This highlights a key issue in the preparation of the LDF for Peterborough and delivery of the wider sustainability agenda adopted by the council. The application of the Sequential Test process will therefore be invaluable in informing the development of the Spatial Strategy and development proposals within the area, in assessing the suitability of each potential development location, taking full account of the flood risk of land. Hence flood risk considerations have been investigated in detail as part of the growth scenario mapping coexistent with a sequential approach as per PPS25. This will define the growth that may be in delivering the regional targets set by the Regional Spatial Strategy (see section 4).

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 15 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 4 Planning Policy and Guidance 4.1 National Planning Policy 4.1.1 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (December 2006)

National planning policy on development and flood risk in England is set out in PPS252 and aims to “ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding”. A sequential approach to the location of development is a key foundation of PPS25 and is based on flood avoidance, with new development directed to areas where the probability of flooding is lowest. Development should be kept out of medium and high flood risk areas, wherever possible. As part of the sequential approach, the vulnerability of land uses should also be considered when determining development suitability.

It is required by PPS25 that Local Planning Authorities (LPA) undertake a sequential risk based approach to determining the suitability of land for development and to assist in the process, a sequential approach is to be followed. Application of a sequential test, as outlined in PPS25 provides the basis for this assessment, in demonstrating that there are no reasonably available sites, in areas of lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed. The Guidance also states that where sites cannot be allocated for development in low or medium flood risk areas, those in areas of higher risk may be considered. However, before so doing, an Exception Test will be required to demonstrate that the site meets three key objectives reflecting sustainability and effective management flood risk (see section 17 for more information). 4.1.2 Planning Policy Statement 25 Practice Guide (June 2008)7

The PPS25 Practice Guide7 complements the guidance provided in PPS25 by providing detailed advice on how to implement PPS25 policies. The Practice Guide draws on existing good practice, through case studies and examples, to demonstrate how Regional Planning Bodies (RPB) and Local Planning Authorities (LPA) can deliver the national policies in PPS25 in the light of their own varying circumstances.

The aim of the Practice Guide is to support and facilitate the implementation of the Government’s national planning policies on development and flood risk as set out in PPS25. As such, it should be taken into account by RPBs and LPAs in the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), Local Development Documents (LDD) and when deciding on planning applications. 4.1.3 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005)8

PPS1 outlines the overarching planning policies for the delivery of sustainable development across the planning system and sets the context for other planning policy statements. PPS1 explicitly states that development plan policies should take account of flooding, including flood risk and proposes that new development in areas at risk from flooding should be avoided. Planning authorities are also advised to ensure that developments are “sustainable, durable and adaptable” including taking into account natural hazards such as flooding.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 16 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc PPS1 also places an emphasis on ‘spatial planning’ through the preparation of development plan documents in which the core strategy is required to be strategic and visionary in content, whilst taking into account the desirability of achieving integrated and mixed use development and considering a broad range of community needs. With regard to flood risk, it is important that core strategies and accompanying supplementary planning documents recognise the contribution that non-structural measures can make to flood management.

Whilst not directly relevant to the development of an SFRA, it is important to recognise that the flood risk assessment process takes place within the context of other planning policy guidance and statements, some of which also require sequential testing of site allocations and development proposals. PPG3 (Housing), PPG4 (Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms) and PPS6 (Planning For Town Centres) are intrinsic within the planning process, and therefore an understanding of the constraints faced as a result of this additional policy guidance is necessary. 4.2 Regional Planning Policy

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) covering Peterborough is the East of England Plan9 (EEP) which provides a consistent framework for the preparation of LDDs. The EEP was adopted in May 2008 and updates the previous Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England. The Plan covers the period until 2021 and provides a regional framework for the preparation of the local authority development plans in the region. The current EEP sets out long term visions, objectives and strategies for the region and focuses on reducing the regional impacts on and exposure to the effects of climate change. A main objective of the RSS is to reduce the risk of adverse impact of flooding on people, property and wildlife habitats.

The overall vision of the EEP is that:

“By 2021 the East of England will be realising its economic potential and providing a high quality of life for its people, including by meeting their housing needs in sustainable inclusive communities. At the same time it will reduce its impact on climate change and the environment, including through savings in energy and water use and by strengthening its stock of environmental assets”.

The following key objectives are of particular relevance to the current study:

To reduce the region’s impact on, and exposure to, the effects of climate change by:

ƒ Locating development so as to reduce the need to travel; ƒ Effecting a major shift in travel away from car use towards public transport, walking and cycling; ƒ Maximising the energy efficiency of development and promoting the use of renewable and low carbon energy sources; and ƒ Reducing the risk of adverse impact of flooding on people, property and wildlife habitats. To improve and conserve the region’s environment by:

ƒ Ensuring the protection and enhancement of the region’s environmental assets, including the built and historic environment, landscape and water;

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 17 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Re-using previously developed land and seeking environmental as well as development gains from the use of previously undeveloped land; ƒ Protecting and, where appropriate, enhancing biodiversity through the protection of habitats and species and creating new habitats through development; ƒ Providing a network of accessible multi-functional green space; and ƒ Reducing the demand for and use of water and other natural resources and reducing waste, whilst increasing the sustainable management of waste. In order to support sustainable development the spatial strategy within the RSS seeks to concentrate development in a number of key centres, including Peterborough.

The principal aim for Peterborough (defined in the EEP policy PB1) is a strategy based on growth and regeneration to strengthen the role of the city as a major regional centre and focus of the northern part of the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough Growth Area. Policies should seek to:

ƒ Achieve an increase of at least 20,000 additional jobs in the period 2001-2021 together with strong housing growth, sustainable transport improvements and provision of social, community and green infrastructure and should address: ƒ Development of the city centre to provide an improved range of services and facilities including retailing; ƒ Housing, leisure, cultural and green infrastructure; ƒ The regeneration of the city centre and inner urban areas so as to realise the potential of the centre’s historic heritage and promote quality in the built environment; ƒ Delivery of a significant and sustained increase in housing; ƒ Seeking to attract investment in sectors of the economy with scope for expansion such as knowledge based industries, public administration, retail and leisure services and environmental industries, building on it credentials as an environment city whilst also supporting important existing sectors, such as food processing; ƒ Improving access to locally based further and higher education facilities through a strategy to establish and expand the provision of higher education and work towards the provision of a university; and ƒ Providing improved transport choices within the urban area and between the city and its hinterland. The strategy recognises that Peterborough’s influence extends over a wide geographic area, and seeks to further develop its role as the principal commercial, retail and service centre for the north-western part of the East of England and adjoining areas of the East Midlands. It builds on Peterborough’s potential for sustained long term growth, its strategic location and relatively unconstrained development opportunities. Alongside new jobs, the strategy should achieve a minimum of 25,000 new houses between 2001 and 2021.

The Plan includes the following topic based policy of relevance to the current study:

Policy WAT 4: Flood Risk Management states that:

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 18 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Coastal and river flooding is a significant risk in parts of the East of the England. The priorities are to defend existing properties from flooding and locate new development where there is little or no risk of flooding.

Local Development Documents should:

ƒ Use Strategic Flood Risk Assessments to guide development away from floodplains, other areas at medium or high risk or likely to be at future risk from flooding, and areas where development would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; ƒ Include policies which identify and protect flood plains and land liable to tidal or coastal flooding from development, based on the Environment Agency’s flood maps and Strategic Flood Risk Assessments supplemented by historical and modelled flood risk data, Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMP) and policies in Shoreline Management Plans (SMP) and Flood Management Strategies, including ‘managed re-alignment’ where appropriate; ƒ Only propose departures from the above principles in exceptional cases where suitable land at lower risk of flooding is not available, the benefits of development outweigh the risks from flooding, and appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated; and ƒ Require that sustainable drainage systems are incorporated in all appropriate developments. Areas of functional floodplain needed for strategic flood storage in the Thames Estuary should be identified and safeguarded by local authorities in their Local Development Documents. Therefore the preparation of this SFRA is integral to meeting regional targets and aspirations. 4.3 Local Planning Policy 4.3.1 Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement 2005): Saved Policies10

The Plan has set-out a strategy statement, consistent with the Council’s Vision Statement and national and regional planning policy in which it seeks to:

ƒ Promote the growth of Peterborough as a vibrant and dynamic regional centre which acts as a focus for inward investment; ƒ Promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of all sections of society and improve health and the quality of life by setting a positive framework for the provision of jobs, housing and facilities; ƒ Protect and enhance the natural and built environments; and ƒ Reflect the City Council's commitment to the principles and practice of sustainable development. Following a Direction issued by the Secretary of State on 25th June 2008, those policies included within the schedule of Saved Policies continue to remain in force after this date. All other expired policies within the Plan are no longer in force. Those relating to flood risk (Policy U6: Development at Risk of Flooding) and site allocations for residential, employment and retail development have been saved for the purposes of future planning decisions.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 19 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 4.3.2 Peterborough City Council: Local Development Framework

Peterborough City Council is currently developing its Local Development Framework (LDF) This LDF must conform to the targets and aspirations of the RSS, to be delivered through the various LDDs. One of the first development plan documents to be prepared as part of the LDF is the Core Strategy which will be submitted for adoption in summer 2010. The Core Strategy will establish a long term vision, based on the Regional Spatial Strategy, with broad policies and proposals to deliver that vision over the period up to 2021 and beyond.

The LDF, once completed, will consist of a portfolio of documents, and those of relevance to this study include:

ƒ Peterborough Core Strategy; ƒ Site Allocations DPD; ƒ City Centre Area Action Plan; ƒ Planning Policies DPD; ƒ Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste DPDs; ƒ Proposals Map; and ƒ Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme (POIS) Supplementary Planning Document. Peterborough Core Strategy DPD Following public consultation on the Core Strategy Preferred Options between May and June 2008, preparation of the Strategy has continued, taking into account the comments received, prior to submission to the Secretary of State. When adopted, the Strategy will establish a long term vision with broad policies and proposals for Peterborough over the period up to 2021 and beyond. The spatial strategy within the Core Strategy will identify the broad approach to the way in which Peterborough will grow during this period, and at the heart of this is a desire to deliver growth in a sustainable way.

The Core Strategy will set out broad locations for development. A policy on Urban Extensions will ensure that these substantial areas of new growth will outline the broad criteria required to ensure the sustainability and deliverability of these major strategic sites.

Other areas of particular relevance to this SFRA include the Core policy for the City Centre which will set out the broad strategy that the City Centre Area Action Plan will explore in detail and a flood risk policy to guide the allocation of sites for development and the granting or refusal of planning permission for any other sites.

Specifically, water related policies in the emerging Core Strategy (Preferred Options) are limited to:

ƒ CS 4 Key Infrastructure (which is concerned with sewerage and water supply rather than directly flood related issues, and is therefore dependant on the Water Cycle Study as the evidence base); and ƒ CS 21 Flood Risk; which at present is worded to enable development in line with the growth targets that protects people and buildings from the risk of flooding now and in the future.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 20 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc The SFRA will be critical to finalising the Core Strategy and other LDF documents in its assessment of the suitability of broad sites that are allocated; this relates mainly to the urban extensions, but also to the City Centre.

Site Allocations DPD The Site Allocations DPD will identify land for housing, employment, retail and other forms of development, including mixed-use development. Detailed site assessment criteria, of which flood risk is an important aspect, will be used to select the most sustainable and appropriate locations for development.

City Centre Area Action Plan There is a long identified need for a co-ordinated programme of regeneration in the City Centre, and therefore a City Centre Area Action Plan (CCAAP) is being prepared to provide the framework for the revitalisation and expansion of the City Centre by identifying the opportunities for a range of commercial, residential, social, transport, environmental and physical benefits. The CCAAP will allocate sites central to the delivery of its aims for revitalisation and regeneration.

Planning Policies DPD A Planning Policies Development Plan Document (PPDPD) will be prepared to provide the detailed policies to assist in determining planning applications to ensure implementation of the Core Strategy vision. Policies of particular relevance to be informed by this study include:

ƒ Residential Development; ƒ Employment Development; ƒ Key Infrastructure; ƒ Urban and Village Boundaries; ƒ Transport; ƒ Retail; ƒ City Centre; ƒ Urban Design and Public Realm; ƒ Open Space and Green Infrastructure; and ƒ Flood risk. The Planning Policies DPD is at an early stage (Issues and Options) and will look to present three policies on flood risk:

ƒ Development at risk of flooding; ƒ Surface water management and sustainable drainage systems; and ƒ Protection of and maintenance of watercourses and their flood defences. At present there is no specific mention of water related policies in them; however it is anticipated that “Open Space and Green Infrastructure”, “Urban Design and the Public Realm” and “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” chapters will set out policies regarding the incorporation of SUDS or similar in line with a Surface Water Management Plan which may be dependant on the SFRA as part of its evidence base.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 21 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Documents Peterborough City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council are jointly preparing Minerals and Waste Development Plan Documents. These documents will set out the vision, site allocations and spatial planning policies to guide mineral extraction and waste management development in a sustainable manner until 2026. They will be vital in ensuring that construction materials are available to support planned growth and sustainable waste management facilities are in place for existing and planned communities.

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Documents include:

ƒ Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and waste Core Strategy; and ƒ Site Specific Proposals DPD. Proposals Map The Proposals Map will indicate the key features, designations and site allocations within Peterborough, drawing on the Core Strategy, Site Allocations DPD, CCAAP and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme (POIS) SPD The POIS SPD, when adopted, will help to ensure that new developments contribute to sustainable growth by:

ƒ Outlining the policies and procedures of Peterborough City Council in respect of planning obligations; ƒ Assisting in pre-application discussions and in the determination of planning applications; and ƒ Providing land owners, developers and inward investors with clarity on the level of neighbourhood and strategic infrastructure contribution sought from developments.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 22 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 5 Other Policy and Guidance 5.1 Integrated Growth Study

Through the framework established by the RSS, and as a key evidence base for the LDF Core Strategy, an Integrated Growth Study (IGS)5 has been prepared for Peterborough.

The IGS has provided a detailed investigation of the potential growth of Peterborough and has established patterns of development within the area, by testing different growth scenarios against a number of absolute and non-absolute constraints, set within the context of the key principles of growth needed to deliver sustainable communities, established by the RSS. This spatially driven study has provided the broad locations and quantums for future growth and has established the principle of urban intensification, with a focus for residential growth within the City Centre in informing the development of the Core Strategy.

Section 7 contains further, more detailed, information regarding the development of the IGS. 5.2 Catchment Flood Management Plans

Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) have been produced for both River Nene and River Welland by the EA in consultation with many interest groups involved in managing flood risk. CFMPs look at a catchment as a whole and produce sustainable policies for managing flood risk in the future up to 100 years by taking into account factors such as climate change, future development and changes in land use and land management. As well as informing Local Development Frameworks, national and local flood management policy, CFMP will feed into the proposed EU Floods Directive.

The River Nene and Welland CFMPs are now fully completed, officially launched in December 09. Further discussion on these CFMPs including the specific recommendations made on the “Peterborough and Nene Washes Policy Unit” is given in Part 5 (e.g. Section 21, 22 and 23) of this Level 2 SFRA report. 5.3 Padholme Flood Protection Strategy

Work has been carried out in the Padholme catchment11, east of Peterborough, which provides guidance on the preparation of flood risk assessments in the area. A flood risk mitigation strategy for the area has been developed which provides appropriate flood defence standards for the current planned development within the area and associated flood risk management policy in the area in a coordinated way.

The strategy is based on improvement of local watercourses and the implementation of management regimes. A complete catchment approach has been chosen for the Padholme area in order to reduce the likelihood of piecemeal surface water management measures being implemented, and to reduce the risk of inadequate long term maintenance leading to increased flood risk. Taking a joined-up strategic approach enables easier management and funding of the works. Guidance therefore specifies that all future developments should be designed to avoid requirements for on-site storage and attenuation of floodwater, in favour of the agreed whole site measures. Appropriate Section 106 agreements and financial contributions will be required to recover capital and maintenance costs associated with the implemented flood management infrastructure that protects the catchment.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 23 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc It should be noted however that the Padholme Strategy and associated strategic mitigation measures only considered the development sites allocated in the adopted Local Plan; consequently the impact of additional development sites and future climate change will still require consideration in any future SWMP for Peterborough. 5.4 Regional Flood Risk Appraisal

A Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) for the East of England was published in March 200912; a number of ‘Key Centres for Development and Change’ (KCDC) were identified of which Peterborough is one. The RFRA concludes that just 53% of Peterborough KCDC is in Flood Zone 1.

The RFRA predominantly makes use of CFMPs to build up a picture of flood risk across the region; Peterborough is addressed within the River Nene CFMP13 and the River Welland CFMP14. It states that within the Nene catchment 165 properties in Peterborough are at risk of flooding from a 100-year fluvial event along with community services and critical infrastructure; inclusion of the anticipated impacts of climate change increase this number by 70%. Within the Welland catchment, flooding in Peterborough, Eye and Peakirk occurs from the Paston Brook. A total of 140 properties are predicted to be at risk of flooding during a 100-year fluvial event; this figure increases by 75% when taking into account the predicted future impacts of climate change.

The RFRA identifies surface water flooding in Peterborough occuring as a result of significant impermeable surfaces and sewer flooding in Peterborough west. 5.5 Water Cycle Study

This Level 2 SFRA has been carried out to coincide with the final stages of the Peterborough Water Cycle Study (WCS) commissioned by OP, PCC and the EA.

The Outline WCS6 completed in January 2009 identified key development site locations, phasing scenarios and trajectories, key infrastructure constraints, outline solutions and future opportunities. It also recommended in producing a Detailed Strategy to develop full solutions, guidance and an implementation plan. It is anticipated that this Level 2 SFRA will inform the flood risk and surface water management policy and mitigation requirements for the Detailed WCS. 5.6 Emergency Planning and the Civil Contingencies Act

The Civil Contingencies Act, and accompanying non-legislative measures, delivers a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom. The Act is separated into two substantive parts: local arrangements for civil protection (Part 1) and emergency powers (Part 2).

Part 1 of the Act and supporting regulations establish a clear set of roles and responsibilities for those involved in emergency preparation and response at the local level. The Act divides local responders into two categories, imposing a different set of duties on each.

Category 1

This relates to those organisations at the core of the response to most emergencies. This includes Peterborough City Council, as well as the local emergency services and the NHS. Category 1 responders are required to assess the risk of emergencies occurring and use this to inform contingency planning, as well as putting in place: Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 24 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Emergency plans; ƒ Business Continuity Management arrangements; and ƒ Arrangements to warn, inform and advise the public in the event of an emergency; Category 1 responders must also co-ordinate and share information with other local responders to enhance the efficiency of the response; and provide advice and assistance to businesses and voluntary organisations about business continuity management (Local Authorities only).

Category 2

This includes organisations such as the Health and Safety Executive and transport and utility companies, which are less likely to be involved in the heart of planning work but will be heavily involved in incidents that affect their sector. Category 2 responders have a lesser set of duties - co-operating and sharing relevant information with other Category 1 and 2 responders.

Peterborough City Council comes together with other Category 1 and 2 organisations to make up Cambridge and Peterborough’s Local Resilience Forum. The Community Risk Register group within the Forum is responsible for identifying potential hazards and addressing them in a multi- agency approach. Information from this Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 provides an important source of data to assist with the identification of hazards. This report will therefore identify relevant hazards and related information to assist the work of Peterborough’s emergency planning and resilience officers.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 25 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc (This page has been left blank intentionally)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 26 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc PART 2 HISTORICAL APPROACH TO SITE SELECTION

Forward to Part 2

Part 2 of this report (Comprising Chapters 6 -11) are provided as context for the SFRA2. It sets out, in detail, the ‘history’ as to:

What are the headline development requirements that Peterborough is charged with delivery (Chapter 6); How options for growth were derived (Chapter 7); How flooding issues were taken into account (Chapter 8); How major development sites were assessed, and then either rejected or taken forward (Chapter 9 – Flood Zone 1 sites/ Chapter 10 – Sites outside Flood 1); and Overall summary and conclusions of this ‘historical site assessment process (Chapter 11)

The purpose of Part 2, therefore, is to highlight how major development sites have, to date, been prioritised for development by taking into account a wide range of issues, including amongst other matters, the use of the ‘sequential test’ as advocated in PPS25. Part 2 is, therefore, a ‘position statement’ pulling together information from a wide variety of sources in order to assist the reader and set the context for the actual Level 2 SFRA commences in Part 3. If the reader is familiar with this historical account already, it would be advisable to go to Part 3 now, as use Part 2 as a reference guide if and when necessary.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 27 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 6 Peterborough: Development Needs 6.1 Introduction

The preceding sections of this report have set out the planning policy context for the future development of Peterborough at a national, regional and local level providing the overarching policy framework to guide future planning decisions. Under this framework, the evidence and plans have been developed to provide the basis for identifying how future growth can be accommodated in a timely sustainable manner, meeting the needs within Peterborough to 2021 and beyond.

At the heart of this strategy work, was the recognition of Peterborough as a sub regional centre, providing principal commercial, retail and public services for the wider region and the substantial growth envisaged. Central to this was a focus of development activity within the City Centre, recognising its low status compared to competitors and failure to function effectively as an attractive and user friendly location for the range of retailing, cultural, leisure and commercial uses. It was therefore concluded that new development, supported by other regeneration initiatives would be required to support the City Centre, to ensure the needs of the growing population would be met and to raise the status to be competitive and comparable with other city centres across the country.

The role of the City Centre as a key destination for growth is recognised within local planning policy. The current Replacement Local Plan states that:

“it is in the interests of the whole city to concentrate significant development in the centre, rather than at locations which may act as competition and potentially undermine its success10.

Pivotal to the revitalisation of the City Centre as an attractive, vibrant and functioning place is the identification of a range of commercial, residential, social, transport, environmental opportunities that can be delivered through a co-ordinated programme of physical and social regeneration and development to benefit not only the City itself but the surrounding area.

Accessibility to and within the City is nonetheless good, with the city centre well served by public transport routes (rail, bus, cycle and pedestrian routes) linking it to the rest of the urban area and the rural hinterland.

It is widely recognised that at the end of the working day, there is a net outflow of people from the centre of Peterborough and as a consequence this has lead to a lack of activity and vibrancy with little for residents, workers and visitors to do. For this reason the City Centre is often perceived as being an unwelcoming or unsafe place15.

To support these aspirations, an Urban Regeneration Company, Opportunity Peterborough (OP), was established in 2005 to manage the transformation in the development of Peterborough and to ensure that the City develops in parallel with its planned growth. The aim of OP is to establish Peterborough “as a vibrant and attractive place to live, work and visit, by day and by night, bringing about 25,000 new homes, 20,000 new jobs and introducing 40,000 new members to our communities by 2021”.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 28 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 6.2 Retail and Services

Retail rankings provide an indication of the types of retail services on offer, as well as how a particular town or city compares overall to other places across the country. Peterborough City was ranked 45th on the Experian retail ranking for Great Britain in 2007, having fallen eight places in four years16. As well as increasing competition from other nearby cities, the retail offer in Peterborough City Centre competes with other retail centres within the wider Peterborough urban area, such as the Brotherhood Retail Park and Serpentine Green. Peterborough has a similar population to other cities within the region, such as Norwich, Leicester, Cambridge and Nottingham, though noticeably, all four of these are ranked consistently higher than Peterborough in their retail standings.

In addition to the current retail offer, the lack of diversity in entertainment and leisure provision (for example concert venues, city centre cinemas, quality sports facilities, and diversity of restaurants), has contributed to reducing the draw and appeal of the City Centre compared to neighbouring cities within the region. For this reason, residents of Peterborough and neighbouring towns regularly choose to travel to Nottingham, Leicester, Cambridge and Norwich, not only to shop but also to work and for their leisure. Peterborough aims, through growth, to improve the range of services and facilities available in the city centre for use by all. 6.3 Housing

The importance attached to the promotion of residential development within the City Centre has long been recognised as a key tool in the revitalisation and economic well-being of the area. The 2003 Peterborough Sub-Regional Study17 carried out on behalf of EERA states that:

“The city centre would also be further rejuvenated by the introduction of new housing. A city centre population would offer a constant presence in the central area, which has the effects of supporting services, adding vibrancy, reducing the need to travel and improving community safety. Opportunities for housing or mixed use development should be explored as part of Peterborough’s on-going renewal.”

This is further supported through planning policy; the current local plan10 recognises the importance of residential development within the City Centre and its encouragement in increasing the levels of activity within the area throughout the day and evening economy in helping to maintain shops, pubs, restaurants and other businesses. It is for these reasons that the IGS considered the City Centre to be an important location for housing development within each of the growth options put forward.

Peterborough City Council and Opportunity Peterborough also support the need to create a range of housing types in the city centre to appeal to a diverse range of people and families. The identification of city centre development sites to accommodate the range of housing required will be undertaken through the CCAAP18. 6.4 Employment Opportunities

Office based development has provided a large number of jobs within the city centre and given this importance and the relatively high accessibility of this area, the further expansion of B1(a) office employment in the city centre was identified as desirable by the Local Plan (First Replacement).

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 29 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Office accommodation in Peterborough is increasingly being recognised as outdated and vacancy rates are increasing. In order to ensure that the City Centre is not characterised by poor quality office and employment locations, new and regenerated employment areas are being promoted as part of the City’s planned growth. There is also a strong desire to address the fact that Peterborough currently has a higher proportion of lower paid, lower skilled jobs than the national average. As part of the future development of the City, OP and PCC aim to tackle these employment and skills-based issues and to develop the City as a centre for commerce, innovation, entrepreneurship and employment. The role of the CCAAP will be to ensure that the right facilities and locations are identified to encourage new business, to establish new Higher Education facilities and to enhance the City as a location for public and private sector employment.

This position is supported by planning policy, which recognises the importance of office based development in providing a large number of jobs within the City Centre and given the relatively high accessibility of the area, the further expansion of B1(a) office employment in the City Centre is promoted by the current Replacement Local Plan.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 30 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 7 Peterborough Integrated Growth Study (IGS): Development Opportunities and Constraints 7.1 Introduction

This section sets out the background to the development opportunities and constraints for Peterborough established through the Integrated Growth Study. The approach taken in the preparation of the IGS is detailed and the key recommendations highlighted to demonstrate that, as a key evidence based document in the preparation of the LDF Core Strategy, both the process and outcomes of the study are soundly based, have followed a systematic and robust analysis; and have been informed by widespread and open community engagement.

The IGS was prepared as a strategic study, to identify and prepare the most suitable and sustainable spatial growth pattern. As part of this, sites available for growth were identified, explored and analysed including mapping of constraints (includes flood risk). This was a critical part of the process to demonstrate that the recommended option produced within the IGS would be deliverable and would provide a sound evidence base for the Core Strategy.

This section outlines the methodology used to formulate the IGS Spatial Options and Recommended Option, the establishment of spatial principles, assembly of spatial baseline data, and the calculation of specific development quantums for identified growth areas.

During the production of the IGS, extensive public consultation was undertaken to meet the requirements of the Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)19 Three separate public consultation periods (Issues Stage, Conceptual Options Stage, and Options and Evaluation Stage) were held as development of the IGS progressed, in addition to a stakeholder visioning workshop to establish the direction of the spatial option and the preferred economic scenarios to lead Peterborough’s growth. Key feedback from the second and third stage consultations is included, where relevant, alongside the information about the development of the IGS Recommended Option. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 illustrate this process.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 31 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 7-1 IGS Options Development Work Stages part 1 (IGS, Appendix G, figure G1.1)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 32 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure7-2 IGS Options Development Work Stages part 2 (IGS, Appendix G, figure G1.1)

7.2 Development of Conceptual Options 7.2.1 Overview

Following the initial baseline research including early constraints analysis, the IGS developed conceptual growth options. These were used to gain the input of the wider community into the IGS process. These options were not intended to provide specific development quantum or locations; they aimed to provide an initial framework for growth, based on recognised spatial concepts and key inputs listed below:

ƒ Spatial principles of urban planning and design (discussed in subsection 7.2.3); ƒ The spatial baseline (discussed in subsection 7.2.4 ); ƒ Site visits; ƒ The fifty identified overarching issues (discussed in IGS, Appendix B); ƒ The IGS Vision and Objectives (discussed in IGS section 1.5); ƒ Feedback from early public and stakeholder consultation events on the issues and opportunities for growth (IGS Stakeholder & Public Consultation Report- Issues Stage); ƒ Regional Spatial Strategy growth minima (discussed in subsection 4.2 and 7.2.2); and ƒ An early-stage constraints analysis (discussed in subsection 7.3.2 ). 7.2.2 Residential and Employment Growth Quantums

Figure 7.3 illustrates the number of residential dwellings that had to be found for Peterborough to meet its RSS growth targets.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 33 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 7-3 Residential quantum required for Peterborough to meet its RSS growth targets (taken from IGS, Section 3.2, Table 3.1)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 34 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc The RSS9 set a minimum target for Peterborough of 20,000 additional jobs to be delivered between 2001 and 2021. In order to meet these targets and on the basis of past trends, the draft Employment Land Review20 stated that Peterborough required between approximately 214.7 and 281.9 hectares of employment land over the period 2007 up to 2021. The Employment Land Review assessed a range of sites and identified a selection of favourable sites for employment development which helped inform the strategic options considered in the IGS. The IGS then undertook research into what the most appropriate economic scenarios would be to identify the best composition of growth so that the aspirations of the Community Strategy could be met. 7.2.3 Establishment of Spatial Principles

Conceptual Options were developed based on four different approaches to urban planning and design:

ƒ City centre regeneration; ƒ Growth within the boundary of an existing urban area; ƒ Growth on the periphery of existing urban areas (urban extensions); and ƒ Rural growth in villages. 7.2.4 Development of Spatial Baseline

The spatial baseline was developed using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to map relevant spatial and planning considerations. This process was carried out to enable a better understanding of the characteristics of the land within Peterborough and to illustrate how future growth patterns might be influenced by the current spatial context. A total of 36 maps were produced, covering issues relating to landscape characteristics and quality, infrastructure and socio-economics including flood risk (taken from the Level 1 SFRA). These are displayed in the IGS Appendix F, Spatial Baseline. 7.2.5 Early Constraints and Suitability Analysis

From the spatial baseline GIS analysis headline constraints to growth were identified; these included attributes such as main roads, rivers, lakes, flood risk, contamination, minerals and waste, nature conservation, historic landscape and conservation areas. 7.2.6 The Conceptual Options

Appendix A of this report contains the relevant IGS outputs (Figure A1 in Appendix A identifies the Conceptual Options); each option presented one of three different development principles and spatial configurations, with associated variations in terms of the broad locations for future growth and level of emphasis placed on the city centre. The three conceptual options were:

1 City Centre and Diverse Vibrancy in Rural Villages focused growth on the city centre and its wider areas, with significant growth in rural villages; 2 City Centre and New Fringe Centres / Edge Development encouraged intensification of the city centre and its wider area, but to a lesser extent than in Option 1, with more growth located at the fringes of the urban area in urban extensions; and

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 35 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 3 City Centre and Compact Vibrancy in Urban Centre incorporated the greatest intensification of the city centre and its wider area, along with the intensification of district and local centres.

The second IGS consultation period (IGS Stakeholder and Public Consultation Report - Conceptual Options Stage), highlighted that Conceptual Option 1 was the least popular amongst consultees, who raised the following key points and issues:

ƒ Significant growth in the villages would be likely to impact negatively on their context and character; ƒ Unless significant employment opportunities were created in the villages, development in the rural areas was not considered to be particularly sustainable as it would require major investment in infrastructure whilst increasing the need to travel; ƒ Rural development would limit the opportunities for implementation of public transport (because of the spread of the growth) and reduce the potential for the redevelopment of areas within the main urban area that are in greater need of regeneration; and ƒ Appropriate and controlled development respecting the context and character of individual villages whilst helping to maintain their vibrancy might be supported, particularly in larger villages. Conceptual Options 2 and 3 both received more support from those responding than Conceptual Option 1, but several advantages and disadvantages were identified for each:

Conceptual Option 2:

ƒ The size of the individual urban extensions offered potential for creating entire developments with the potential to adopt sustainable building design and construction practices from the beginning and thus benefits associated with economies of scale with the use of materials and technologies; ƒ Deliverability of this option would potentially be simpler based on the size of the land plots available (and therefore the capacity provided for meeting the growth targets); and also the reduced numbers of land owners on large sites compared to a similar combined area of smaller city centre sites; ƒ There was more opportunity for providing a greater range of dwelling types in urban extensions due to the lack of restrictions; ƒ The loss of greenfield land is generally unpopular and there was a fear that this option would lead to further urban sprawl in Peterborough; and ƒ There was a risk of creating commuter towns which have little community feel to them. Conceptual Option 3:

ƒ The resulting investment in the urban area would allow capitalisation, expansion and improvement of the existing infrastructure; ƒ The location of key services and facilities, as well as housing, in the city centre would reduce the need to travel which made this the most sustainable option from a transport point of view;

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 36 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ This option would be most likely to lead to the regeneration of existing urban areas, focusing on the city centre as a key driver of growth and enabling Peterborough to maintain its status as a major regional centre; ƒ The capacity of the city centre was a significant factor in how successful this option could be; and ƒ Issues relating to land assembly and preparation of brownfield land could reduce the option’s deliverability. After gaining feedback on the Conceptual Options, the IGS used this information, along with site specific data, to create detailed spatial options for Peterborough’s growth. The following subsection sets out this next stage. 7.3 Development of the Spatial Options 7.3.1 Identification of Potential Growth Availability Areas

The subsequent stage in the process of adding detail to the Conceptual Options identified potential growth availability areas by mapping areas of historic demand (where development had recently been consented or completed), future demand (where interest in development had already been expressed by stakeholders) and other areas of additional availability (identified through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Study21, Local Plan allocations not yet consented and mapping of key projects identified by PCC and OP). Areas of historic demand were subsequently discounted from further analysis and areas of additional availability and future demand retained for further consideration.

Sites considered by the IGS as options for development are detailed in Appendix A4. Appendix A5 then highlights the location of the largest of these, which are considered to have the potential to lend themselves to urban extensions. The process of appraising the key strategic sites for Peterborough through the Sequential Test is demonstrated in sections 8, 9 and 10 of this report. Findings from the process are summarised into separate sections of this report from the rest of the IGS process, to ease understanding how PPS25 was taken into consideration. 7.3.2 Spatial Development Constraints and Suitability Analysis

The IGS undertook comprehensive constraints mapping using the spatial baseline information including the Level 1 SFRA3. Areas subject to spatial development constraints were identified by mapping key variables considered to have a potentially significant impact on the possibility of future development in a certain location. Variables were classified as ‘absolute’ constraints, which identified those areas that were likely to be the least suitable locations for new development (for example Flood Zone 3b functional flood plain), and ‘non-absolute’ constraints, which would potentially impose varying degrees of limitations on new development in certain locations (for example topography). Lists of the absolute and non-absolute constraints are shown in Figure A4 in Appendix A of this report. The maps of absolute and non-absolute constraints are illustrated in Figures 7-4 and 7.5 and can be viewed at a larger scale in Figures A5 and A6 in Appendix A of this report.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 37 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 7-4 Absolute Constraints to Spatial Development (IGS, Appendix G, Figure G1.5)

Figure 7-5 Non-absolute Constraints to Spatial Development (IGS, Appendix G, Figure G1.6)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 38 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Suitability analysis and mapping provided a broad qualitative way of identifying those areas most and least preferable for growth in social, economic and environmental terms. Each of the identified spatial development constraints were allocated a score from 0 to 10, according to the severity of the constraint, 0 being the most severe, 9 the least severe and a score of 10 meaning that the feature causes no constraint to development. All absolute constraints were accorded a value of 0 or 1. Depending on the relative severity of their impact on potential development, ‘non absolute’ constraints were accorded scores of between 2 and 9; Appendix A7 of this report summarises the identified development constraints and their associated suitability analysis scores for each site.

When simultaneously mapped in GIS, the suitability scores associated with each individual development constraint provided a combined spatial indication of those areas most and least suitable for development including consideration of flood risk as well as other key constraints (such as nature conservation and contamination) and other planning considerations. The suitability map is shown in Figure 7-6 and at a larger scale in Figure A8 (Appendix A).

Figure 7-6 Suitability Analysis Plans (taken from IGS, Appendix G, Figure G1.8)

A map of the sites available for growth post constraints analysis is available in Appendix A, Figure A11. 7.3.3 Integrated Resource Model (IRM)

Following the suitability analysis, the Conceptual Options were subsequently developed into more detailed Spatial Options, which estimated dwelling numbers and areas of employment land. To assist with this process, an Integrated Resource Model (IRM) (discussed in IGS appendix E

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 39 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc and the Integrated Resource Management Model Report) was developed to quantitatively measure the sustainability and resource implications of options put forward.

The IRM was used in an iterative manner throughout the IGS to:

ƒ Shape the IGS vision ƒ Inform the development of the spatial options ƒ Assess the performance levels of the spatial option (*) ƒ Inform development of the recommended option (*) ƒ Assess the performance of the recommended option (*) Where (*) appears, the IRM was a key part of this process.

The IGS defined vision themes based on the Community Strategy Refresh, 2007 ((discussed in IGS section 1.5). Using these themes, along with international, national and local sustainability policy, a framework for the IRM model was developed in the context of the Council’s approved Sustainability Appraisal Framework22. The framework consists of a series of resource related IRM objectives. A series of associated Key Performance Indicators (KPI) were aligned to each of the IRM objectives and headline targets were developed.

The IRM included 25 objectives and 61 KPIs to ensure that a broad range and diversity of indicators were used to assess the sustainability of the Spatial Options, aid in their refinement, and through the consideration of constraints and opportunities, to bring forward a sustainable pattern of growth. The objectives and indicators used to assess flood risk are shown in Table 7- 1.

IRM objective IRM indicators IRM Headline Target

Ensure Peterborough No additional households should be adapts to inevitable Percentage of dwellings in flood risk located inside flood risk categories 3a Climate Change, areas (headline indicator) and 3b, whilst any development in including through flood risk category 2 is to have reducing vulnerability to appropriate mitigation measures flooding Number of dwellings in flood risk areas

Area (ha) of development in flood risk areas

Table 7-1 IRM Flood Risk Objective and Indicators The Spatial Options developed are discussed in the following subsection, reviewing the constraints, resource and infrastructure requirements of each. The outputs of the IRM facilitated this part of the work and therefore are inherent in the commentary for each option. 7.3.4 Introducing the Spatial Options

The Conceptual Options were developed into Spatial Options, which proposed dwelling numbers and areas of employment land. The specifications of each of these Spatial Options are outlined in Figure 7-7.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 40 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 7-7 Specifications of the 3 Spatial Options (IGS, Spatial Options Evaluation Report, table 3.1)

7.3.5 Spatial Option 1: City Centre and Diverse Vibrancy in Rural Villages

The key development principles of Spatial Option 1 (shown in Figure 7-8 and at a larger scale in Figure A10 in Appendix A) included:

ƒ Considerable growth in large and medium sized rural villages ƒ Majority of growth in the urban area, particularly the city centre ƒ Intensification of Millfield and Hampton Township District Centres

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 41 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 7-8 Spatial Option 1

Constraints and Sustainability ƒ Growth of this size in villages designated by the Settlement Hierarchy23 as Key Service Centres and Limited Growth Villages could change the character of these rural areas and would have to be carefully phased to reduce the impact; ƒ The small villages were assumed to accommodate growth of up to 10 dwellings with the exception of Northborough, which, due to the absolute constraint of the surrounding land being in Flood Zone 3b, was not able to accept any growth; ƒ Peterborough would need a very strong central core to support rural growth in terms of providing easily accessible services in the City Centre; ƒ Despite significant growth being awarded to villages, the importance of preserving the character of these settlements and therefore build at 30 dwellings per hectare, meant significant growth would still be required in the urban area. Consequently intensification of two district centres was included in the option. The overall spread of growth would be likely to reduce opportunities for economies of scale; ƒ Expansion of Castor and Ailsworth was proposed on a large scale (1400 homes) on land available to the north of the villages consequently doubling the size and thus a likely merger of the two villages into one much larger village, a key service centre larger than Eye; and ƒ Millfield was considered to provide very good access to the city centre, but its intensification potential was limited due to its urbanised nature and traffic congestion problems. Intensification would need to take account of the need to broaden land uses and tenure types in the area and the community would need to be heavily involved in ensuring development of a more sustainable future for this district centre. Infrastructure ƒ The village areas available for growth were determined largely based on the number of school places available with particular regard to the expansion of the current primary Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 42 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc school but also scope for construction of a new school was also considered. The scale of growth proposed in Castor and Ailsworth would require at least one new school being built; ƒ Development in the outlying villages would require costly reinforcement of the electricity networks, gas networks and water pipe work; ƒ It was found that several villages were not connected to the main gas network; whilst this would be a very costly exercise, growth would be a key opportunity for the current dwellings to be fitted with a gas supply to reduce their reliance on more expensive electric heating; and ƒ Village water treatment works would also be likely to require expansion in order to accommodate population increases. Public Consultation Feedback Consultation results (discussed in the IGS Stakeholder and Public Consultation Report - Options and Evaluation Stage) showed that this option was not well supported by consultees, especially those living in the Peterborough villages. Key comments raised are listed below:

ƒ High growth figures would negatively impact on the character of the villages and erode identity; ƒ There was some positive feedback highlighting that boosting the numbers in villages could enable the continuation of local services such as post offices, butchers, and convenience stores; ƒ Generation of employment in rural areas could revitalise existing communities and reduce the daily travel of residents but the more common situation of purely housing development would result in a less sustainable situation with more people commuting into the city for work; and ƒ In order to deliver much needed regeneration in the city centre, it would be important to encourage high earners to relocate to the city centre and urban area rather than purely the rural villages. This option also proposed the lowest levels of growth in the city (due to constraints associated with deliverability, landscape character and public opinion), and so provided the least amount of flexibility to meet the RSS targets. 7.3.6 Spatial Option 2: City Centre and New Fringe Centres / Edge Development

The key development principles of Spatial Option 2 (shown below in Figure 7-9 and at a larger scale in Figure A11 in Appendix A) included:

ƒ Significant growth in two urban extensions ƒ Significant growth in the urban area ƒ Less growth in the City Centre than options 1 and 3 ƒ Intensification of Hampton Township district centre

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 43 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 7-8 Spatial Option 2

Constraints and sustainability ƒ The scale of the urban extension developments proposed meant that just under half of all the required growth could be catered for creating economies of scale that could benefit the area in terms of investment; ƒ The accessibility of the public transport network, particularly buses, was optimised; ƒ There was greater emphasis required in reinforcing the urban area transport network and making strategic additions; ƒ Around 170 hectares of employment land would be allocated but ‘B8’ (Storage and /Distribution) development would be confined to the outskirts of the urban area boundary and not located in urban extensions; ƒ Predominantly mixed use development provision within the city centre would encourage the promotion of sustainable communities; ƒ The decision to select the urban extensions of Great Haddon and Norwood, as opposed to the other sites shown in Figure A3 in Appendix A can be followed in more detail in Section 9; ƒ Flood risk within Peterborough City Centre would limit the development potential of certain areas of the city, in particular within Flood Zones 3a and 3b; and ƒ Werrington Gas Compressor site was a significant potential constraint on development in its ‘inner and middle consultation zones’. Infrastructure ƒ Concentration of development in a few large locations would improve the coordination of utility services provision;

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 44 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ The size and scale of the urban extensions would potentially give greater potential for developer funding to provide key bus services before the new developments reached the quantum needed to provide a significant enough user base; ƒ There may have been a need for a new primary electricity substation in the Werrington area (an EDF Energy proposal) and a new Waste Water Treatment Works in Great Haddon; ƒ Reinforcement of gas and foul water drainage may have been required in some locations. ƒ Transport connections could have been focused on certain routes reducing the overall investment required. ƒ Development of a Park and Ride system and location would be suitable as part of the urban extensions. Public Consultation Feedback ƒ Those stakeholders that responded regarded this option as the most deliverable, noting that urban extensions would provide more certainty in meeting growth targets than piecemeal development in the urban area (advocated by Spatial Options 1 and 3). This would be due to the size of the likely land parcels resulting in economies of scale and a reduction in the number of landowners; ƒ Urban extensions would create a large amount of flexibility and diversity in terms of potential development types and locations, thus appealing to a wide range of market sectors; ƒ Urban extensions built on greenfield land were unpopular and did not meet the requirements of PPS324 to focus development on reuse of brownfield sites; ƒ Very large developments, as could be the case with urban extensions, would also create areas of less character since all buildings are the same age. Although there was potential to build a more diverse range of home sizes, developments style would date in their design potentially resulting in social issues, as has been the case with several of the large developments created in Peterborough during the 1980s. ƒ Although the capacity of the City Centre to accommodate very high levels of growth may be limited, there was a view that effort must be focused on delivering development in the City Centre and, as such, must not be diluted by development occurring elsewhere in Peterborough. Development in urban extensions can divert attention, detracting from the city centre and causing further decline. ƒ This option looked at less growth in the city centre and may not have achieved the boost required to support the economy of the whole area. ƒ For further information see the IGS Stakeholder and Public Consultation Report - Options and Evaluation Stage 7.3.7 Spatial Option 3: City Centre and Compact Vibrancy in Urban Areas

The key development principles of Spatial Option 3 (shown in Figure 7-10 and larger in Appendix A12) included:

ƒ Concentration of new development within the existing urban area ƒ Intensification of all five district centres, plus some local centres

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 45 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Largest amount of growth (and highest densities) in the city centre compared to options 1 and 2

Figure 7-10 Spatial Option 3

Constraints and sustainability ƒ Spatial Option 3 proposed the densest level of development, the majority of which was concentrated within the urban area. From a public transport accessibility perspective, it was the most practical and economical to plan and implement services for, whilst internal lines of travel would reduce overall distances and minimise additional vehicle requirements for operators. ƒ The growth of Peterborough, regardless of the spatial layout of the growth, requires the city centre to be a strong core that can sustain current and future populations and provide the required facilities and services. The focus on the city centre in this option allows a concentration of resources into this area which would ensure that the city centre and its services are as successful as possible. This in turn should generate a more successful Peterborough. ƒ Areas of Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b were present within areas broadly identified for growth. These would restrict the potential for development within this area. ƒ Other existing land use designations would limit the development potential of this spatial option including allotments, public open space, school recreation space and potential minerals and waste sites. Infrastructure ƒ Reinforcement of existing utilities networks including water and sewerage to support new development would require the laying of new services in existing streets, which could be costly and disruptive.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 46 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ The spread of growth across the urban environment meant that the electricity demand would have been spread across a range of different substations, giving the best opportunity for the existing network to be optimised. However the sum of new housing would likely to require a new primary (132kV) city centre substation. ƒ Spatial Option 3 would potentially put the Parkway system under greatest pressure, earlier than the other options due to the intense nature of development. In order to allow smoother travel from place to place the Parkway must therefore offer buses more opportunity to operate efficiently by implementing appropriate traffic measures such as Selective Vehicle Detection to give buses priority. ƒ Less opportunity for a park and ride site to be developed Public Consultation ƒ Concentration of development in the urban area was thought to be most sustainable option in terms of, reducing greenfield land take, enhancing public transport potential and social benefits and improving the economy of the city centre. ƒ The volume of growth proposed in the city and district centres, may not have been achievable or deliverable within the required timescale. High levels of growth in the city centre were associated with high rise development and likely over-provision of smaller apartments and flats which would not provide a sufficient mix of housing or correspond to existing housing need in the area. Development of surface car parks would only provide part of the solution, whilst implementation of such a policy must also be considered. ƒ If development were to take place in the district centres, it was considered important that it would not overburden local services and facilities or have a detrimental effect on the character or provision of open space in the local areas. There was particularly strong opposition to development in Bretton, whilst Millfield was identified as being in need of regeneration. ƒ Provided that development was undertaken in the right way, the villages could accommodate more growth than was proposed by this option. ƒ Although the proposed overall levels of growth in the urban area were very high, this option did provide the greatest opportunity for regeneration of the city centre and run-down areas elsewhere in the city. Addressing issue of fragmented land ownership, the influence of certain developers, significant strengthening of infrastructure needs and overcoming flood risk constraints would be key challenges. ƒ For further information see the IGS Stakeholder and Public Consultation Report - Options and Evaluation Stage 7.3.8 Consultation Proposal

The Consultation Proposal was a combination of the most sustainable and popular elements of the three Spatial Options in the context of the initial evaluation results, but prior to the final evaluation. It was developed from IRM outputs, early evaluation findings and feedback from the Conceptual Option consultation stage. A key criterion in the final evaluation of the Spatial Options was the assessment of Public and Stakeholder Support for the various proposed patterns of growth in Peterborough. The Consultation Proposal was therefore put forward to consultees for their comments, alongside initial evaluation results, as a means of achieving greater feedback on possible ways forward for the Recommended Option.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 47 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 7.4 Final Evaluation

The final evaluation process overlapped with development of the Consultation Proposal given that public and stakeholder support was one of the key criterion against which the options were evaluated. Following consultation the rest of the final evaluation was carried out. Each Spatial Option was evaluated against seven criteria, namely:

ƒ Compliance with appropriate policies and strategies (including PPS25); ƒ Contribution to vision and objectives; ƒ Deliverability; ƒ Economic costs and benefits; ƒ Level of resource use; ƒ Transport assessment; and ƒ Public and stakeholder support. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the overall performance of each Spatial Option against these criteria and as part of this process, to assess the performance of key aspects of each Spatial Option, in order to provide flexibility in the formulation of a “Recommended Option”. No detailed assumptions were made about phasing within each Spatial Option and the evaluation considered only the ‘end-state’ of each, measured against the identified evaluation criteria. Table 7-2 summarises the key aspects of each option.

Evaluation Criteria Spatial Option 1 Spatial Option 2 Spatial Option 3

1. Policy and Strategy + + +/++ Compliance

2. Vision and Objectives + 0/+ ++

3. Deliverability -/-- + +/++

4. Economic Benefits £1,142,061,000 £955,162,000 £1,205,634,000

5. Level of Resource + 0/+ +/++ Use

6. Transport Assessment 0 - +

7. Public Support - ++ +

Criteria 1-7 0 + +/++ EVALUATION

Table 7-2 Overall Results for Spatial Options 1, 2 and 3 (taken from IGS, Spatial Options Evaluation Report, 2007, table 4.38) 7.5 Consultants Recommended Option

The IGS presented a Recommended Option, which was based upon a combination of inputs:

ƒ Identified issues in Peterborough that need to be addressed (IGS Appendix B);

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 48 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Relevant planning policy, in particular the RSS minimum growth targets for employment and housing (IGS Main Report Sections 1.1, 3.2 and 3.4); ƒ IGS Vision and Objectives (IGS Main Report Section 1.4); ƒ Preferred Economic Scenario - ‘Environment Plus’ (IGS Appendix D); ƒ Appropriateness relative to suitability analysis; ƒ Integrated Resource Management (IRM) Model quantitative assessment of resource efficiency (IGS Appendix E); ƒ Identification of growth availability areas and their capacity to accommodate development (IGS Appendix G); ƒ Comments received during stakeholder and public consultation, in particular feedback on the Consultation Proposal and Spatial Options (IGS Appendix G); ƒ Spatial Options Evaluation results (IGS Appendix I) relating to their: ƒ Compliance with appropriate policies and strategies; ƒ Potential to contribute to achievement of the IGS Vision and Objectives; ƒ Overall deliverability of the quantum of development required within the Plan period. ƒ Economic costs and benefits; ƒ Level of resource use (measured through the IRM model); ƒ Impacts upon the highway and other transport networks, through the transport assessment; and ƒ Public and stakeholder support. Development of the Recommended Option followed a similar methodology to that used to formulate the Spatial Options, with amendments required to take into account views from public consultation. For example:

ƒ As a result of stakeholder and public concern over density, plot ratios for the city entre were altered from 1:2 to 1:1.5 to reduce the potential for multi storey development in the city centre; and ƒ After re-evaluation of the district centres, in terms of the amount of growth that could reasonably be accommodated and the effect that this might have on their existing character, the total number of dwellings proposed for the five district centres was reduced from 5,000 to 4,000. Although the IGS identified areas for development, it was a strategic study not intended to focus on detail within individual sites. As the work progressed it was clear that City Centre regeneration was of high importance to Peterborough and that the key to this was in having residents living in the centre. This is an area where growth and regeneration objectives and the importance of a risk based approach must be carefully balanced to ensure development is as sustainable as possible in all senses; meeting both future economic growth, social cohesion, environmental criteria and present needs.

This Recommended Option formed the basis for the Council’s Preferred Option contained in Part B of the Core Strategy Preferred Options version. The IGS Recommended Option is shown in Figure 7-11 and A13 in Appendix A.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 49 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 7-11 IGS Recommended Option

The Recommended Option map was a key output of the IGS, highlighting the spatial growth pattern that Peterborough should explore.

This section has summarised the overall process of the IGS. Sections 8-10 provide more detail about the flood risk related elements of site selection. Although the IGS was a strategic study, the sites that were available for growth did have to be identified, explored and analysed in order for the spatial growth pattern to be developed effectively. This work has been drawn out into chapters 8, 9 and 10 of this report to aid understanding of the process involved in site selection.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 50 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 8 Addressing Flooding Issues in Peterborough Site Selection 8.1 Overview

Section 8 introduces the context for the Sequential Test process as defined by PPS25 by setting out the earlier Level 1 SFRA work carried out by Royal Haskoning3 in January 2008 and the IGS outputs. The IGS undertook a sequential approach to the identification of the pattern of growth but it is recognised that this was not as clearly documented and demonstrated within the report as is necessary. This was partly due to the size and scale of the project, taking into account all development related factors that influence the sustainability and growth of Peterborough, and the consequent need to define a system for the balancing and weighting of these constraining factors. The following sections therefore draw this information together and then give the context to the Level 2 SFRA presented in Part 3.

This section specifically defines the evidence base used for site selection and sections 8.2.5 and 10 then demonstrates the process of site selection using a sequential approach based around flood risk mapping:

ƒ Section 9 illustrates the Flood Zone 1 sites that are available and those that are appropriate for development; ƒ Section 10 reviews other strategic and key city centre sites that Peterborough wants to bring forward for development due to the wider sustainability benefits in improving and regenerating the city as a whole. Section 10 also takes the proposed development sites that are either located completely in Flood Zone 2 or partially in Flood Zones 2 and 3 through the sequential test based on the Level 1 SFRA; and ƒ Section 11 provides a summary and conclusions from the Sequential Test based on Level 1 SFRA These sections provide information on how steps 1 to 3 of the PPS25 flood risk management hierarchy was applied in the development of the Peterborough Core Strategy based on Level 1 SFRA outputs. The application of the sequential test to sites using findings from the Level 2 SFRA are presented in Part 3 onwards. Both Level 1 and Level 2 SFRA recognise that the most effective form of flood risk management is risk avoidance through the application of Sequential Approach and Sequential Test based on the best available flood risk information. The historical site selection evidence and future policy recommendations reflect this fundamental aspect throughout.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Assess AvoidSubstitute Control Mitigate

Figure 8-1 PPS25 Flood Risk Management Hierarchy

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 51 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 8.2 Defining The Evidence Base 8.2.1 Geographical Area

All sites considered in sections 8.2.5 and 10 of this report fall within the boundary of Peterborough City Council. Within some of the subsections smaller site boundaries are used for the Sequential Tests and this is discussed where relevant. 8.2.2 Flood Risk Data

The flood risk information used by the IGS was taken from the Peterborough Level 1 SFRA; the EA Flood Maps from March 2008 were used in the production of the SFRA alongside the additional information on other sources of flooding such as sewer, highway and overland flooding. The mapping was released early to PCC to allow inclusion in the study before publication on the EA website. This ensured that the most up-to-date information was used in both the production of the Level 1 SFRA and the IGS constraints analysis which in turn were used to inform the IGS Recommended Spatial Option. 8.2.3 Source of Development Site Data

In the absence of a formally adopted Development Plan other than the current Local Plan, the potentially reasonably available sites have been identified from the following documents:

Draft Peterborough Employment Land Review20 The draft Employment Land Review (ELR) identified sites considered suitable for employment use in Peterborough; the document contains details of existing employment allocations to be released, existing allocations to be retained, and potential new sites. Potential new sites were assessed using market and sustainability scoring matrices. In each case, the sites were ranked 1 to 3 for each criterion, where 1 was the least desirable and 3 was the most desirable. The two sets of criteria used for each site were:

Market Assessment

ƒ Position in the hierarchy of the sequential approach according to location; ƒ Time frame to deliver (assuming allocation in the Site Allocations DPD;) ƒ Proximity to other employment uses; and ƒ Ownership.

Sustainability Assessment

ƒ Proximity to public transport; ƒ Proximity to housing; ƒ Brownfield or Greenfield; ƒ Flooding; ƒ Landscape sensitivity – ecological; ƒ Landscape sensitivity – cultural; Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 52 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Landscape sensitivity - visual; and ƒ Contaminated Land. The market assessment was scored out of 12 and the sustainability assessment out of 24. The ELR scored all of the sites that were put forward by agents and landowners in 2007 for employment development in Peterborough including mixed use sites as well as those proposed purely for employment. Since all known sites at the time were assessed using this comprehensive methodology, the IGS assumed that all sites deemed suitable by the ELR would be brought forward for B1, B2 and/ or B8 uses.

The ELR has since been finalised (now dated 2008). While the IGS based its supply of employment land on the draft ELR, it is important to note that there was an overlap in the development of the ELR and the IGS. Consequently, the decisions made in the final ELR regarding the employment areas within significant mixed use urban extensions were largely based on the final resolutions made in the IGS as the two studies took an iterative approach.

As a result, while the selection of the significant urban extensions featured within the IGS Recommended Option are analysed in this study, any other sites promoted purely for employment within Peterborough are not, as the ELR methodology was deemed acceptable for the site selection process.

The Strategic Housing Land Availability Study (SHLAS)21 This Study identifies potential land and buildings that are or could be available for housing led regeneration to support the sustainable and planned growth of the city. This includes both the identification of potential housing sites and the testing of these sites to assess their deliverability.

Based on density assumptions taken from the Peterborough Residential Study 200725, and the number of developments built, permitted or allocated, this study identified a deficit for the Peterborough area of 5,750 units from the target 25,000 by 2021. The report caveats this figure for the fact that it does not include potentially surplus land that may be identified in an employment land review which might be considered appropriate for residential development within this period.

Peterborough Integrated Growth Study5 The IGS was developed as part of an iterative process alongside the ELR and the SHLAS. Additional potential sites in the IGS were collected from a land forum and from discussions with agents and developers. These additional sites are shown in Figure A2 in Appendix A. 8.2.4 Sites

The potentially available sites that the IGS considered for growth are listed in Appendix A4. However, this report mainly considers the proposed Strategic Sites, i.e. those that are considered “central to the strategy” as defined by paragraph 4.6 of PPS25. The City Centre is a strategic area of potential development due to its identified role in delivering housing growth and revitalising the Peterborough urban area. The City Centre consists of many smaller sites, some of which can deliver key elements of Peterborough’s sustainable growth. These sites, many of which are also regeneration areas (brownfield land), will be referred to from now on as “the key City Centre sites”. These key City Centre sites have been considered in the subsequent Sections alongside the other strategic sites for growth delivery, such as those proposed for urban extensions. The sites are considered in the following order depending on their positioning within the flood zones:

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 53 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Flood Zone 1 sites (section 9); ƒ Predominantly employment urban extensions outside Flood Zone 1 (section 10.2); and ƒ Key City Centre sites outside Flood Zone 1 (section 10.3).

8.2.5 Quantum of Growth

During section 9, as sites are mentioned, an approximate quantum of growth is given to present an understanding of the potential capacity of each site. The figures are based only on the size and appropriate density within the site, i.e. at this early stage they are gross values, not taking into account constraints to development. Development constraints and their effects on site development are explored further through the remainder of the section.

Residential The IGS quantums for the residential use in the Recommended Option were calculated using average densities of 100 dwellings per hectare (dph) for the city centre, 50 dph for new urban extensions and 30 dph for rural areas. Intensification within current district or local centres was proposed based on individual characteristics of the different areas.

The overall quantum of growth that the IGS proposed for the city centre, district centres, urban extensions and rural areas are made up of a combination of development on strategic sites and much smaller sites. Within the city centre and district centres, development of certain surface car parks was considered as well as residential infill. At the end of section 11, a table presents:

ƒ The total dwelling numbers proposed by the IGS Recommended Option in each area of Peterborough

ƒ The proposed number of residential units within strategic development sites, i.e. those considered by this SFRA Level 2

ƒ The number of dwellings proposed within each of the different flood zones in the city centre and urban area.

Employment (Land use planning class B) The approximate land areas for employment development, shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, are taken from the Employment Land Review, or if sites were not included specifically in this then from the IGS.

The employment floor space (m²) can be calculated from the employment land area (ha) using the conversion factors detailed in the IGS Economic Scenarios Report26. These figures are illustrated in Table 8-1.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 54 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Land Use Plot Ratio Employment density (m2 per worker)

B1 0.73 19

B2 0.4 34

B8 0.4 90

Table 8-1 Conversion factors for calculating employment floor space from employment land area For example the total area of the Alwalton Hill site is 54.5 ha, but a developable area of 39.9 ha has been allocated to B8 employment uses. The resulting employment floor space is 16 ha or 159,600m² (1 ha = 10,000 m²)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 55 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 9 Level 1 Application of the Sequential Test: Flood Zone 1 Sites 9.1 Introduction

“Local Planning Authorities allocating land in Local Development Documents (LDDs) for development should apply the Sequential Test to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed” (Paragraphs 16, PPS25).

Following the guidance set out in PPS25, this section considers the availability of development sites in Flood Zone 1; their appropriateness to be taken forward as a strategic site and consequently whether consideration of sites outside Flood Zone 1 is necessary to meet the role and function of the city and its planned growth in terms of housing numbers and employment land allocated. Sites that could deliver significant growth and would be appropriate as substantial urban extensions are reviewed, as well as those that could deliver growth and regeneration within the city centre.

“In areas at risk of river or sea flooding, preference should be given to locating new development in Flood Zone 1” (Paragraphs 17, PPS25).

Since land in Flood Zone 1 has the lowest risk of flooding, all uses are appropriate on the basis of flood risk subject to no significant flood risk from other flooding sources. Following the identification of sites within Flood Zone 1, attention is focused on those sites identified for potential urban extensions and whether there are other site specific constraints which will limit their potential to be progressed further. This initial assessment was undertaken to assess potential development land that could be located within the low probability Flood Zone 1 prior to consideration of the need for locating strategic sites in zones of medium to high flood risk probability. 9.2 Overview of All Potential Strategic Sites in Flood Zone 1

The table in Appendix A4 identifies all of the potential development sites (of all sizes, locations and flood zones) identified for the IGS. Those that were considered for strategic extensions are then mapped in Appendix A5.

The options for strategic sites within Flood Zone 1 are summarised in Tables 9-1 and 9.2 and illustrated in Figures 9-1 and 9-2, respectively.

It should be noted that some Flood Zone 1 sites shown in Table 9-1 have a very small proportion of their land in Flood Zone 2 or 3. These sites are of such a scale that any actual development would be limited to the low probability Flood Zone 1, with Flood Zones 2 and 3 considered for sustainable drainage measures, water compatible uses and wider green infrastructure proposals, if appropriate. Therefore these sites are deemed to be in essence flood zone 1 sites.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 56 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 9-1 Potential urban extensions considered in Flood Zone 1

Figure 9-2 Potential strategic city centre sites in Flood Zone 1

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 57 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site Name (Size) % in Flood Zone Proposed use Approx Employment (B dwelling class) land area 1 2 3a 3b numbers (ha)

Locations wholly or predominantly in Zone 1 (Gross site area in ha) - Urban extensions

Site West of Castor (78.9 Predominantly 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 800 ha) residential

Castor Site (48.0 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0

Castor Site (65.4 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixed use but Castor Site (26.0 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 predominantly residential Castor Site (64.0 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 Combined size of 25 ha (B1, B2 & 4000 Castor Site (52.1 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 these sites gives B8) significant land Castor Site(11.1 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 for an urban Castor Site (4.7 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 extension

Castor Site (0.7 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alwalton Hill (54.5 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 Employment - 39.9 ha B8*

Predominantly Stanground South (70.1 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 1500* 5.5 ha B1* residential

Predominantly 1 ha B1 North Werrington (61.7 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 1500 residential 5.7 ha B2

Horsey Grange (29.2ha) 98.2 1.1 0.7 0.0 Mixed Use - 11.7 ha B1

Mixed use but Norwood (96.4 ha) 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 predominantly 1600 17 ha B1 residential (dw)

Predominantly Paston Reserve (48.5 ha) 98.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 1240* Not known / N/A residential

Mixed use but 10.7 ha B1 6000 Great Haddon (443.6 ha) 94.5 0.2 1.0 4.3 predominantly 30 ha B8 residential (dw)

Dwellings 15,640

Employment land (ha) 146.5 ha

Table 9-1 Potential urban extensions wholly or predominantly within Flood Zone1 (* Numbers are not from IGS/ELR calculations, but based on outline planning applications submitted before/during the IGS)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 58 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site Name (Size) % in Flood Zone Proposed use Approx Employment dwelling class land area 1 2 3a 3b numbers (ha)

Locations wholly or predominantly in Zone 1 (Gross site area in ha) – Strategic city centre sites

Station Quarter West (9.7 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixed use 740 0.5 ha B1 ha)

Station Quarter East (5.7 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixed use 600 0.5 ha B1

Residential & District Hospital Site (12.3 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 public sector 940 2 ha B1 ha) uses

London Road Allotments 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixed use 125 Not known / N/A (1.6 ha)

Football Ground (2.6 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixed use 135* Not known / N/A

Rivergate (5.2 ha) 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixed use 440 Not known / N/A

Dwellings 2,980

3.0 ha Employment land (ha)

Table 9-2 Potential city centre strategic sites wholly or predominantly within Flood Zone1 (* Numbers are not from ELR or IGS calculations, but based on outline planning applications submitted before / during the IGS.

9.2.1 Summary

Flood Zone 1 Sites Available In total the sites presented above give Peterborough options for:

ƒ Providing approximately 18,000 homes ƒ Large mixed use but predominantly residential urban extensions: South Stanground, Castor, North Werrington, Norwood and Great Haddon; ƒ Some city centre sites with regenerative potential (through residential, employment and mixed use schemes) around the railway station and in the southern part of the city centre, although not enough to generate the city centre vibrancy that is needed to enable greater promotion of the River Nene, one of Peterborough’s key aspirations; ƒ One employment only urban extension (Alwalton Hill) which is focused solely on B8 distribution uses; ƒ A large plot of land proposed for B1 use within an urban extension at Horsey Grange; and ƒ Small amounts of employment land in predominately residential urban extensions.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 59 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Urban Extensions with Planning Permission South Stanground and Paston Reserve received outline planning permission during the timescales of the IGS. The housing numbers associated with these sites are included in the balance of sites with outline planning permission shown in Figure 7.3 and therefore cannot contribute to the additional numbers that are sought and will not be reviewed further for additional housing allocations.

Alwalton Hill received outline planning permission during the timescales of the IGS and contributes to employment land; job numbers and will therefore not be reviewed further for additional employment allocations.

Meeting Residential Targets The table below shows the additional dwellings that would be available for new development across all potential Flood Zone 1 sites listed in tables 9-1 and 9-2 above.

Site Dwellings

Urban Extensions 12,900*

City Centre 2,980

Already committed developments 15,239

Total 31,119

Table 9-3 Updated summary of additional housing and employment numbers that would be potentially created by development of all potential Flood Zone 1 urban extensions and city centre sites. (* Does not include Stanground South, Paston Reserve, Hampton or Alwalton Hill)

At the start of the IGS 27,534 dwellings were required by 2026 to enable Peterborough to meet its housing growth targets. This information is extracted from figure 7.3, but is more easily written as:

Dwelling Provision for 2001 to 2021 Number of Dwellings

Net dwellings achieved (built) 2001-2007 4863

Total outstanding requirement 2007-2021 20,356

Total requirement 2021-2026 7,178

Total outstanding net requirement (2007-2026) 27,534

Table 9-4 Growth figures extracted from figure 7.3 (originally from the IGS)

The figures shown in table 9.3 provide more than the RSS minimum requirements. However, it is also important to note that the number of dwellings identified in table 9.3, from the strategic Flood Zone 1 sites does not take account of any development occurring within rural areas, or Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 60 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc outside the city centre but still within the current urban area. It is important that enough growth does occur in these other areas to ensure that investment is made and benefits are realised across Peterborough’s existing communities, for example in the form of new facilities and services. Small numbers of residential units spread across five district centres, over 20 rural villages and over 50 local centres are unlikely to bring significant investment to any one area, especially if the remainder of the growth is focussed in extremely large urban extensions. As greater numbers of units are allocated to these locations, the total potential growth numbers become far more than is required to 2026 so it brings significant flexibility in numbers within the flood zone 1 sites.

It was therefore considered necessary to examine in more detail what would be the ideal pattern of growth for Peterborough, to ensure that the city becomes not just bigger but also better. The growth needs to create a regenerated and welcoming Peterborough, bringing benefits to all and maintaining a strong central core that can support the needs of Peterborough’s urban area and villages as well as the wider region (see section 6 regarding Peterborough’s development needs). The IGS spatial options process examined several different options for spatial growth and these are explained and analysed from section 7.3.3 – 7.4.7. The Integrated Resource Model was used throughout this process to evaluate the development patterns against the vision themes defined by the IGS and developed from international, national and local sustainability policy, the Community Strategy Vision Refresh 2007 and the sustainability objectives from the Local Development Framework.

Meeting Employment Targets Employment numbers are stated in tables 9.1 and 9.2 to give an indication of the capacity of the sites being examined. The progression in employment targets and the related allocations of land, however, are not detailed in this report in as much detail as residential growth. In essence this is because employment land is of lower vulnerability status according to PPS25, and therefore its identification and allocation is more flexible.

9.3 Other Site Specific Development Constraints for Urban Extensions 9.3.1 Introduction

The IGS identified several potential urban extensions available for additional development in low risk areas. Urban extensions can hold very large numbers of dwellings and it has been identified (see sections 6 and 7), that it would not be sustainable for all of the potential urban extension sites to be developed in terms of the detrimental impacts which would result from the concentration of finances and resources outside of the city centre. The need to better balance the spatial growth pattern to maximise the benefits to Peterborough (existing and new) was highlighted through the IGS; and formed the proposed pattern of growth.

Each urban extension site was examined to highlight any constraints other than flooding that would restrict the viability of each location. The aim was to conclude which sites were most appropriate in meeting the future residential and employment needs of Peterborough. The tables presented in the following subsections are summaries; more detailed information can be found in the IGS main report and appendices.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 61 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 9.3.2 Castor Sites

Total site area: 350.9 hectares

Site location: 8 km west of the city centre, immediately adjacent to the A47 arterial road and around the northern boundaries of the villages of Ailsworth and Castor Site Specific Development Benefits: Adjacent to the main (A47) road link between Leicester and Peterborough. Site Specific Development Constraints: Areas of considerable archaeological potential. Substantially Greenfield land which if proposed for development is likely to be very unpopular locally. Development area far exceeds the character and scale of the existing villages and is likely to significantly alter what has previously been named as an Area of Best Landscape by the Peterborough Local Plan, First Replacement, Policy LNE4. This is based on evidence from the Settlement Hierarchy Study, 2007, the Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment, 2007 and the Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment Urban Fringe Sensitivity Study, 2007. The Settlement Hierarchy Study states that “substantial development would be incompatible with the character and scale of the villages and its setting in the landscape.” The Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment, 2007, recommends that development in this area “should be limited and of the highest standard, sympathetic with local and traditional patterns.” The Urban Fringe Sensitivity Study, 2007 identifies that much of the area around Castor (known as Nassaburgh Limestone) has a limited scope to provide adequate mitigation to development in keeping with the existing landscape in the medium term. There are County Wildlife sites adjoining the existing boundary to the South of Castor and a short distance from Ailsworth to the north-east.

Conclusion: Not to be progressed Local environmental sensitivity and the scale of new development compared to the size and character of the existing villages combine to recommend this site should not be progressed.

Table 9-5 Site Specific Development Constraints: Castor Sites

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 62 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 9.3.3 Site West of Castor

Total site area: 78.9 hectares

Site location: 10 km west of the City Centre, immediately adjacent to the A47 arterial road and just north of Sutton village. Site Specific Development Benefits: Adjacent to the main (A47) road link between Leicester and Peterborough. Site Specific Development Constraints: The site is completely divorced from the existing urban area resulting in a new settlement in open countryside. Developing an urban extension here is likely to have negative impacts to the existing village of Castor relative to being out of context and scale.

Conclusion: Not to be progressed Site considered too isolated and development would be detrimental to the rural nature of the immediate environment.

Table 9-6 Site Specific Development Constraints: Site West of Castor 9.3.4 North Werrington

Total site area: 70 hectares

Site location: 6 km north-west of the City Centre, immediately adjacent to the A15. Site Specific Development Benefits: Development area has naturally defined boundaries by both railway line and main roads. The strong road links to Peterborough City Centre.

Site Specific Development Constraints: The land is a green wedge, established to reduce the risk of coalescence of the rural village of Glinton in the Peterborough urban area. Although the land was designated a green wedge through policy LNE2 of the Peterborough Local Plan First Replacement, 2005, this policy remains as a saved policy. The Integrated Growth Study recommended that this land is kept as a green wedge in the new LDF in order to continue to protect the character of Glinton village. Glinton would be affected by development of a neighbouring new urban extension located between the village and the current urban boundary. Lack of local support for development The location of the gas compressor station presents risks associated with the location of dwellings (sensitive land use) near to this site. (Further details of this are included in the IGS Appendix G, section G.1.9.2) and would limit the diversity of land use and scale of this development.

Conclusion: Not to be progressed Defined by the risk of encroaching on the distinction between Peterborough and surrounding settlements, and the presence of risks associated with the gas compressor station.

Table 9-7 Site Specific Development Constraints: North Werrington

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 63 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 9.3.5 Great Haddon

Total site area: 443. 6 hectares

Site location: 9 km south-west of the City Centre, bordered by the M1 and A15. Site Specific Development Benefits: Strong road linkages (M1, A1139 and A15). Large land area considered appropriate to successfully accommodate a significant number of dwellings (up to 6,000) but also encompasses over 40 hectares of employment land. Land immediately north-west of the site (54.5 hectares) already has permission for employment. Land immediately to north east is already being developed as Peterborough’s fourth township and this area cam be seen as an extension of this. Site Specific Development Constraints: Small localised areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3 exist, but development within the site boundary can avoid this, leaving these areas as undeveloped or enhanced riverine corridors which contribute to the overall public open space on the site. Ensure additional buffer zones within FZ1 as required to account for residual flood risk, climate change, surface water management and wider green infrastructure. Primarily a greenfield site.

Conclusion: Progress The site is well placed to connect with a regional road network, immediately adjacent to an approved employment site and existing urban extension development; and sufficient in scale to accommodate a significant proportion of housing allocations.

Table 9-8 Site Specific Development Constraints: Great Haddon 9.3.6 Norwood

Total site area: 96.4 hectares

Site location: 5 km north of the City Centre; the area north of the junction between the A15, A47 and A1139. Site Specific Development Benefits: Well connected to the northern part of the city including strong road linkages (A15, A1139 and A47). The significant number of dwellings (2,300) is complemented by 2 hectares of employment land. Good opportunities to link development into that at Paston Reserve, for example to maximise opportunities for community infrastructure. Site Specific Development Constraints: Whilst the site itself is 99% in Flood Zone 1, the area to the north and east of the site are fens which include areas at risk from flooding. Ensure additional buffer zones within FZ1 as required to account for residual flood risk, climate change, surface water management and wider green infrastructure. Car Dyke Drain is a Scheduled Ancient Monument requiring adequate buffering to ensure no adverse impact – most likely to be used as a feature in the masterplan. Conclusion: Progress Strong road linkages within proximity of an established residential area. The site would include employment and services, linking into Paston Reserve and encouraging a mixture of uses and more sustainable development growth.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 64 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Table 9-9 Site Specific Development Constraints: Norwood 9.3.7 Horsey Grange

Total site area: 29.15 hectares

Site location: Lies to the south-east of Peterborough, adjoining the local authority boundary. It wraps around the Horsey Toll Civil War Fort Site Specific Development Benefits: Good access to the A605, provided the Stanground by-pass is in place. Site Specific Development Constraints: A Greenfield site Outside the urban area boundary In proximity to a scheduled ancient monument, with high archaeological potential Serious traffic implications for A605 through Stanground, unless the by-pass is in place Conclusion: Not to be progressed The site is relatively remote in relation to the built-up area of the city. Development is likely to be prominent in the open landscape and have considerable archaeological implications

Table 9-10 Site Specific Development Constraints: Horsey Grange 9.3.8 Summary of Urban Extension Selection Process

The analysis of the six urban extensions highlighted that Castor, North Werrington and Horsey Grange should not be progressed due to their respective development constraints which include local environmental and archaeological sensitivity, public objections and Health and Safety Executive land use limitations due to Peterborough’s gas compressor station.

The IGS recommended that Norwood and Great Haddon were progressed through the suitability analysis which reviewed all constraints and opportunities, as well as analysis through integrated resource modelling (for further information see IGS report), and the high probability of deliverability and ability to accommodate substantial numbers of dwellings and employment uses. It was therefore concluded that both of these proposed urban extensions would be progressed as they also pass the PPS25 Sequential Test without further analysis due their location predominantly within Flood Zone 1 whilst recognising the need to address additional impact from future climate change through further investigation and detailed masterplanning.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 65 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 9.4 Quantum of Growth Summary

Sites Dwellings (flood zone 1)

Strategic urban extensions 7,600*

Strategic city centre sites 2,980

Other city centre 699

Urban area 3,764

District & local centres 5,060

Rural 590

Already committed developments 15,239

Total 35,932

Table 9-11 Summary of housing and employment numbers potentially created by development of Flood Zone 1 sites * Does not include Stanground South or Paston Reserve. ** Does not include Alwalton Hill

Summary of Residential Growth Given that the housing target was 27,534 dwellings, the Flood Zone 1 sites identified after the IGS constraints analysis (see subsection 7.3.2) present Peterborough with sufficient dwelling numbers to meet the targets of the RSS (East of England Plan). The issues and opportunities that arise from development of these sites were evaluated using the Integrated Resource Model (explained in subsection 7.3.3). The framework of objectives for the IRM was set in the context of the Council’s approved Sustainability Framework22 and based on international, national and local sustainability policy, including Peterborough’s Community Strategy Refresh, 2007.

The sites identified through section 9 for progression to the next stage of planning and development present Peterborough with:

ƒ Two large mixed use but predominantly residential additional urban extensions: Norwood and Great Haddon contributing up to 7600 dwellings; ƒ Some city centre sites with regenerative potential (through residential, employment and mixed use schemes) around the railway station and in the southern part of the city centre. However, it has long been identified that greater promotion of the River Nene is a key step in improving Peterborough’s city centre and ensuring Peterborough meets the objectives set out in the East of England Plan (discussed in section 4.2). Development of the city centre growth sites identified in table 9.2 is unlikely to provide enough momentum for better usage of the Nene and therefore for developing a strong and appropriate balance of uses and vibrancy across the city centre: ƒ The London Road Allotment site is small and being set back from the river is quite far from the current core of the city centre ƒ It was not known at this time what plans would be developed for the football ground so it was assumed that the ground would continue to be located here. This means that there is

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 66 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc limited flexibility over the site’s design and contribution to dwelling numbers and city centre vibrancy. ƒ The Rivergate site could perhaps be redesigned to make better use of the river and create uses that are more in keeping with a city centre. However, it is thought that any development plans for this site will be on a long timescale since there are no current plans for changing the uses of this site and the land ownership is not in the public sector.

There are large sites along the River Nene, which need regenerating and in doing so could be made to contribute positively to Peterborough’s aims of developing a more welcoming and vibrant city centre with a greater range of services and facilities. Given the strong desire to improve Peterborough’s river frontage and use, and the regeneration benefits that sites such as the South Bank would bring to the city centre, the IGS did not rule out all of the city centre sites that were not in Flood Zone 1. It was decided that these sites should be retained for further analysis through an SFRA Level 2. The greater-than-required quantum of residential growth which is possible from Flood Zone 1 sites provides enough flexibility to allow the deliverability of sites to be monitored over time by the Council and for growth targets to be met by the sites which work out to be the most viable of those identified.

Additional Sites - Sites Outside Flood Zone 1 In order for sites that are not in Flood Zone 1 to be considered for growth, the individual sites need to pass the Sequential Test as defined by PPS25. In order to enable delivery of the remaining housing and employment needs of Peterborough, the next section of this report examines the potential strategic employment urban extensions and city centre sites which were considered for growth as part of the IGS. Since these sites have a much greater proportion of their total area in zones of medium to high flood risk probability their appropriateness for development is examined through the PPS25 Sequential Test process.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 67 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 10 Level 1 Application of the Sequential Test: Sites Outside Flood Zone 1 10.1 Initial Assessment

Section 9 summarised the sites that were able to go forward for development without requiring the further application of the Sequential or Exception Tests due to their location wholly or predominantly within Flood Zone 1.

In addition, there are other sites in Peterborough, which are being proposed for development but which are not wholly in Flood Zone 1, and these are further examined in this section. These sites are proposed in order to allow Peterborough to meet its growth targets, while also bringing sustainability benefits to the City. Many of the sites reviewed in this section can facilitate much needed regeneration of the city centre so that it can continue to serve not just Peterborough, but also the wider sub-region. The strategic sites available for employment in Flood Zone 1 also leave a deficit in employment land totals. Employment urban extensions that could sustainably contribute to Peterborough’s growth targets are therefore also examined in this section.

In order for development to be able to proceed on the sites listed below, the Sequential Test needs to be applied and passed for each location. There are no predominantly residential urban extensions proposed outside Flood Zone 1, therefore section 10 considers only:

ƒ Predominantly Employment Urban Extensions; and ƒ Key City Centre Sites. If a site is deemed to pass the Sequential Test with regards to the flood vulnerability of its proposed uses in the relevant Flood Zone, it is not a foregone conclusion that the number of homes or jobs indicated is agreed by Peterborough City Council or any other partners. The numbers shown are displayed as an indication only and are based on calculations of housing density and number of employees per hectare of land use type. The exact density of the site will still need to be examined through site specific Flood Risk Assessments and the detailed masterplanning process for individual planning applications by taking into account Level 2 SFRA findings, to ensure that the appropriate flood mitigation measures are taken and sufficient land is allowed for this purpose.

Table 10-1 summaries the sites considered in section 10 of this report.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 68 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site Name (size) % in Flood Zone Proposed Approx Employment use dwelling class land area 1 2 3a 3b numbers (ha) and floor space (m²)

Predominantly Employment Urban Extensions (see Section 10.2)

10 ha B1 Redbrick Farm (59.4 ha) 45.2 20.3 34.4 0 B1, B8 - 19 ha B8

Regional Freight 21.8 38.8 39.4 0 B8 - 70 ha B8 Interchange (129.5 ha)

Key City Centre Sites (see Section 10.3)

South Bank - Carbon 70.0 13.2 16.7 0 Residential 350 - Challenge (8.2 ha)

South Bank - Fletton Quays 0.6 7.5 91.9 0 Mixed use 380 0.8 ha B1 (6.5 ha)

North Embankment (13.1 66.8 10.1 23.1 0 Mixed use 130 - ha)

Courts, Police Station and 71.1 13.2 16.7 0 Mixed use 60 - Riverside car park (3.4 ha)

Railworld 26.8 32.0 31.9 9.3 Mixeduse 165-

Fengate 2 (11.2 ha) 16.3 2.5 81.2 0 Residential 120 -

Dwelling Numbers 1205

Employment land (ha) and floor space (m2) 10.8 ha B1 89 ha B8

Table 10-1 Details of sites considered in Section 10 In the Sequential Tests that follow the Flood Zones are indicated by:

Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b

In each case, the suitability of a specific land use to the Flood Zone(s) in which it is proposed is indicated by the following notation and sequential approach. This information is obtained from PPS25 tables D2 and D3:

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

A conclusion for each site is reached and indicated by way of a solid coloured traffic light scheme:

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 69 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development can proceed on flood risk grounds. Note that conditions may apply regarding the application of a sequential approach to development within the site. Further work is required to determine the site’s suitability on flood risk grounds or sustainability for development. Development should not be permitted

SEQUENTIAL APPROACH – EXPLANATORY NOTE FOR SEQUENTIAL TESTS

The method used below aims to take into consideration the fact that completed masterplans or planning applications were not available for all development sites being examined here. Where a provisional site layout is available, it has been used to determine the Flood Zone in which each of the proposed uses would be located. Where plans are not available a sequential approach is applied within the site boundary to ensure that the higher vulnerability uses are located in the lowest areas of risk. For example, where ‘highly vulnerable’ or ‘more vulnerable’ uses exist these should be located within Flood Zone 1 if possible.

The result of the Sequential Test is therefore dependent upon the application of a sequential approach to flood risk relative to the placement of uses within a site and this is made clear throughout the Sequential Tests. If the decision to progress a site is conditional upon, for example, more vulnerable uses being located in Flood Zone 1, then this is cited in the “Site to be progressed” box, and the result is expressed as a conditional yes “Y (conditional)”, indicating that the site can progress for further consideration. It should be noted that if in the future the condition is not met by masterplans or applications submitted for the site (e.g. if ‘more vulnerable’ uses are proposed for Flood Zone 3a), then the sequential test result will no longer be valid and the site will need to undertake a revised sequential test by the Council using information supplied by the developer(s). Sites may then also have to undergo and pass an Exception Test before development can proceed.

10.2 Predominantly Employment Urban Extensions

Redbrick Farm and the Regional Freight Interchange (RFI) sites were identified as key sites with the potential to assist in delivering employment growth in Peterborough. Both sites are partially within Flood Zone 2 and/or 3 and hence this subsection will take these sites through the Sequential Test to determine their status with regards to development.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 70 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 10.2.1 Redbrick Farm

Urban Extension – Employment

Existing context: Redbrick Farm is predominantly agricultural (arable) but also includes a few small buildings, and a small reservoir used for farm irrigation. The site contains and borders a number of drainage ditches and small watercourses. To the east of the site the land is flat open countryside and is defined as the Fens Landscape Character Area. Location (see adjacent image): This site is located to the east of the city, east of Edgerley Drain. Immediately adjacent to the site is one of Peterborough’s large existing industrial areas known as the Eastern Industry and west of that is the A1139 Frank Perkins Parkway arterial road. The residential area of Newark and the Oxney industrial estate lie to the site’s north.

Site Capacity: 59.4 hectares

Flood Zone 1 26.9 ha (45.2%)

Flood Zone 2 12.1 ha (20.3%)

Flood Zone 3a 20.4 ha (34.5%)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0%)

Development Type: A significant employment based urban extension is proposed for this site, to interact with the neighbouring Eastern Industry site. Employment proposed is of B1 (offices) and B8 (warehousing and distribution) uses. Development Appropriateness and Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site: The proposed uses and exact layout will be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for illustrative purposes only for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

Offices, warehousing and distribution. Less vulnerable 1*, 2, 3a

Green space and landscape corridors**. Water compatible 1, 2, 3a

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 71 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for this use ** Opportunities for green infrastructure and open space should be maximised within the site, promoting a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 72 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Are there any alternative sites available? Within the range of sites assessed for employment use by the Employment Land Review there are no alternative sites of this scale providing the same benefits as Redbrick Farm, and which are not being promoted for other uses. The site’s characteristics are: ƒ The Flood Zone 1 land within this site is large enough to deliver a significant contribution to Peterborough’s employment targets. ƒ A significant proportion of this site is owned by one party, the Church Commissioners. As a result this site is easily deliverable and is likely to result in growth targets being met much earlier than if employment across the City was delivered piecemeal fashion across many smaller sites. ƒ There are significant opportunities for business cluster development on a site of this scale and character. One of the goals of the Council’s preferred ‘Environment Plus’ economic scenario outlined in the Core Strategy (Preferred Options), is to develop a very strong environment cluster where neighbouring companies can make the most of sharing site technologies, N expertise and networking opportunities as well as attract high skilled workers to the area because of the potential career opportunities. The existence of an environment cluster in Peterborough enabled strong research and work experience links with the City’s further education establishments and future university. These factors would raise the status of the City for people looking to find education, training and employment in the environment sector. ƒ Large sites have more flexibility in their design and therefore present greater opportunities in terms of developing strategic flood and surface water mitigation solutions, and creating additional flood storage enhancement land that could contribute to an overall flood risk reduction in Peterborough. Any floodplain lost directly due to development proposals should be compensated however on a ‘level for level’ and ‘volume for volume’ basis up to 100 year plus climate change level. It should also be provided on land that currently does not flood but adjacent to the floodplain so it is able to fill and drain naturally. ƒ There is also plenty of scope for establishing strong biodiversity and wildlife corridors as part of the blue and green infrastructure on the site, maximising SUDS usage across the site. Flood Zones 2 and 3 within this site are to be reserved only for such purposes if progressed. Site to be progressed? It is likely that the developable portion of this site will equal some 29 ha (from the total 59.4ha) and therefore that it is possible that the vast majority of the development could be prioritised with land that is in Flood Zone 1 (circa 26.9 ha). In addition due to the site’s advantages relative to Y deliverability, flexibility due to its reasonably large size, and adjacent land use context, i.e. next to an existing industrial area, it is recommended that this site is progressed to deliver a large proportion of Peterborough’s required employment land. Exception Test Candidate N

Table 10-2 Redbrick Farm 10.2.2 Regional Freight Interchange

Proposals for development of a ‘Magna Park’ inland rail freight interchange at the Drysides site north of Stanground arose during the later stages of the IGS. Due to the significant size of the proposal and the fact that it had the potential to meet the requirements as set out within the Regional Economic Strategy27 for a regional road-rail freight interchange, the IGS did take note of the hectares of employment land provided by the scheme and factor these into its employment

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 73 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc land calculations, but did not specifically promote the site for development for the following reasons:

ƒ Peterborough City Council’s Draft Employment Land Review did not consider this site as an option for provision of employment land and hence other sites have been identified as suitable to meet Peterborough’s economic growth targets; ƒ The employment roles being proposed are in warehousing and distribution rather than higher skilled positions compatible with the preferred ‘Environment Plus’ economic scenario; ƒ The lack of available information at the time about how the site compared against other potential regional locations; and ƒ The site’s flood risk constraints and its designation as a preferred option for mineral extraction in the Minerals and Waste Plan. New information made available after completion of the Employment Land Review and the IGS, and any changes in status of this proposal (including a sequential test) are discussed in subsection 16.3.2 of this report. 10.3 Key City Centre Sites 10.3.1 Initial Assessment

The sites discussed in this section have been examined by the IGS as key sites that could facilitate the delivery of growth and regeneration in the City Centre. Each site is partially within Flood Zones 2 or 3. This subsection will therefore examine these sites through the Sequential Test to determine their status with regards to development suitability. The majority of these brownfield sites have been identified for their regenerative potential to the city centre and their role in generating benefits to the whole of Peterborough, as well as the wider sub-region. The location and details of the key city centre sites are shown in Figure 10-1 and Table 10-1.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 74 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 10-1 Map of potential key city centre sites not wholly in zone 1

All of the City Centre sites listed in Table 10-1 are located near the River Nene corridor. Regeneration and improvement of both banks of the river has been a key aspiration for Peterborough for many years in order to balance the city centre developments and utilise the presence of the River Nene to generate increased vibrancy in the city. At present, both banks of the river are currently underutilised and not well connected; the north, an area of green space and leisure facilities, and to the south, is an area of industrial and office use which also contains large empty retail warehouses.

The regeneration proposals for Peterborough are focused on trying to reunite the city by making better connections between areas. Instead of the river being a barrier between the historic core and the areas south of the river, it should instead be a focal point and central attraction.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 75 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 10.3.2 The South Bank

South Bank - Carbon Challenge Site

City Centre Site

Existing Context:

The majority of the site was former railway sidings. The remainder used to house the Elliott Group factory and offices, but the buildings have since been removed, and just the concrete stands now remain. This is an underutilised brownfield site in a key city centre position as part of the South Bank area. Land ownership is in the public sector.

Location: (see adjacent image)

Site lies to the south of the River Nene and is one part of the area known as South Bank. The site does not border the river, with its northern boundary being the Peterborough to March railway line. The football ground is located to its south-west; to the south is the community of Fletton, and the eastern boundary is the A1139 (Frank Perkins Parkway) outer ring road.

Site Capacity: 8.2 hectares

Flood Zone 1 5.7 ha (70.0%)

Flood Zone 2 1.1 ha (13.2%)

Flood Zone 3a 1.4 ha (16.7%)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0%)

Development Type:

The site proposes a new community of zero carbon Code Level 6 homes plus accompanying facilities including community buildings. Design and architecture will be to exemplary environmental standards. The Carbon Challenge scheme is a flagship national project which will generate an understanding of how the building industry can respond to delivering zero carbon homes, and which provides an important catalyst for this wider South Bank Opportunity Area.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 76 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The proposed uses will be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for illustrative purposes only for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

Dwellings, community facilities More vulnerable 1

Open space and green infrastructure** Water compatible 1, 2, 3a

Development is appropriate within this zone Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and open space should be maximised within the site, promoting a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

70% of this site falls within Flood Zone 1. It is important that a sequential approach is used within the site, and therefore that the dwellings, community uses and childcare facilities should therefore be located within Zone 1, the area of lowest risk. These land uses classify as ‘more vulnerable’ according to PPS25 and are the most vulnerable of the proposed uses for this site. The outcome of this sequential test (below) is based upon this sequential approach. Should this not prove to be the case when the final masterplan and planning applications are submitted, the results below will no longer be valid and the sequential test will need to be repeated. If the Exception Test is then required for the site, it will need to be passed before development can proceed.

Are there any alternative sites available?

This site sits within the South Bank regeneration area, which is deemed to be able to bring about important economic, social and environmental benefits to Peterborough. The South Bank was recognised within the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005 as a key ‘Opportunity Area’. Options for regenerating this part of the River Nene corridor through encouraging development elsewhere do not exist and hence the focus is on regenerating the South Bank so that the different areas of the site complement each other and together create a significant destination within Peterborough and a strong link in the fabric of the City Centre. N The site is itself a significant development opportunity within the city centre and the opportunities it brings will create much wider regenerative benefits to the city: ƒ Public land ownership across the whole site makes the deliverability of the site more viable. ƒ The vast proportion (70%) of the site has a low probability to flood. ƒ The residential component (which should be located within the Flood Zone 1 areas of the site) will be a major contributor to the vitality of the city centre. ƒ The eco-credentials of the Carbon Challenge scheme will provide a tool with which to promote the city nationally. Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 77 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ This is an existing brownfield site. There is no comparable site alongside the river which offers the same potential for regenerating derelict land, being brought forward by public sector as an exemplar zero carbon development, and at the same time re-knitting the fabric of the city centre.

Site to be progressed to the next stage of analysis and masterplanning?

This site should be progressed to the next stage of development analysis and masterplanning on the condition that the more vulnerable development is located purely in Flood Zone 1.

The regeneration benefits of this site to the city centre as well as to Peterborough as a whole; the

potential for sensitive, more vulnerable development to be located purely in Flood Zone 1; and the Y (conditional) site’s accessibility in terms of connecting with arterial roads, existing public transport links and pedestrian linkages, result in a recommendation that this site is progressed .

Exception Test Candidate N

Table 10-3 Carbon Challenge Site

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 78 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc South Bank - Fletton Quays

City Centre Site

Existing context:

This is a brownfield site along the south bank of the river, occupied by two large retail warehouses, old railway sheds and an operating mill. Land ownership is primarily in the public sector except for a Mill owned by Milton Estates.

Location: (see adjacent image)

This city centre site is bordered by the River Nene to the north, the Peterborough-March railway line to the south, London Road/Town Bridge to the west, and the A1139 (Frank Perkins Parkway) outer ring road to the east.

Site Capacity: 6.5 hectares

Flood Zone 1 0.04 ha (0.6%)

Flood Zone 2 0.5 ha (7.5%)

Flood Zone 3a 6.0 ha (91.9%)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0%)

Development Type:

As a key destination in the city, the plan is to open up the river, providing restaurants and leisure uses that appeal to residents and visitors. An eco-themed university faculty, the Institute of Sustainable Construction, is also being designed for this area as part of Peterborough’s new university. This is intended to sit alongside the second phase Eco-Innovation Centre providing offices to start-up environmental businesses. It is hoped that Fletton Quays will become an Eco-hub for the City to match Peterborough Environment Capital aspirations. The inclusion of residential units and other leisure/retail/cultural uses within the development will keep a constant presence on the site, ensuring passive surveillance as well as adding significantly to the vibrancy of the city centre. The intention is to create a welcoming site that is vibrant during the day and evening and feels safe at night. Residential use also increases the viability of this site and the rest of the city centre, which is key to meeting Peterborough’s regeneration needs as well as growth targets. All of the residential accommodation proposed will be on upper floors, to sit above the ground floor shops, offices and undercroft parking if needed.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 79 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability- Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

Although high level masterplanning has been carried out for this site to give an indication of what types of uses might be found here and how this could be delivered, more detailed plans and layouts will need to be created after completion of the SFRA to ensure that appropriate resources and land space are dedicated to flood mitigation, surface water management and safety measures, so that proposed building densities and final layouts are achievable in practice. At this early stage, the South Bank Masterplan identifies the following potential land for illustrative purposes only for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability Proposed location within (PPS25) flood zones

Residential floor (upper floors only), More vulnerable 1, 2, 3a* University faculty

Offices, leisure, restaurants (on ground Less vulnerable 1, 2, 3a* floor)

Green infrastructure, open space** Water compatible 1, 2, 3a*

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant Flood Zone for this use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

Are there any alternative sites available?

This site sits within the South Bank regeneration area, which is deemed to be able to bring about important economic, social and environmental benefits to Peterborough. The South Bank was recognised within the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005 as a key ‘Opportunity Area’ and the importance of this area still applies. Options for regenerating the southern bank of the River Nene through encouraging development elsewhere do not exist and hence the focus is on regenerating the different areas of the South Bank so that they complement each other and together create a significant destination within Peterborough and a strong link in the fabric of the City Centre. N This particular site forms a unique collection of opportunities likely to bring much wider regenerative benefits to the city:

ƒ The potential to open up the riverside to develop the city centre as a welcoming place to both live, work and visit. ƒ The site currently detracts from the city having a strong and welcoming core due to its mainly derelict state. ƒ Makes use of an existing brown field site likely to be transformed into a landmark development offering leisure and cultural activities. ƒ Opportunity to complement adjacent development sites as a champion for sustainable Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 80 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc construction. ƒ Unique opportunity to connect the historic core of the city with the communities of Fletton, Woodston and Stanground.

For reference section 6 of this document discusses development needs in Peterborough and the importance of city centre regeneration within this context in more detail.

Site to be progressed to the next stage of analysis and masterplanning?

The regeneration potential of this site, on its own, is significant for the long term sustainability of the city centre as well as the wider Peterborough area. The complete South Bank site would include a range of uses that would significantly strengthen Peterborough’s core, creating a welcoming river facing area. The opportunity to link the eco-developments on the Carbon Challenge site to a sustainable construction school and eco-innovation centre at Fletton Quays creates a strong eco-hub that will broaden Peterborough’s offering and national recognition, and move the City strongly towards its goal of being Environment Capital.

Development of this site would provide a much stronger connection between the historic core of the city centre and the communities of Fletton, Woodston and Stanground. The South Bank’s accessibility and new public realm will encourage greater numbers of people to travel across the City Centre by walking, cycling or public transport to enjoy the new facilities and services provided thus increasing economic vibrancy across the remainder of the City Centre.

It is therefore recommended that subject to undertaking and passing the Exception Test this site is progressed for development.

Exception Test Candidate Y

Table 10-4 Fletton Quays

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 81 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 10.3.3 North Embankment

City Centre

Existing context:

The North Embankment is an under utilised brownfield site, which forms part of the city centre Embankment leisure area. The site contains leisure facilities in need of modernisation, the derelict Wirrina building and 3 surface car parks. Immediately adjacent is both a Lido and underused city park which all future development should integrate well with. Underutilisation of this space has been consolidated due to: the expanse of surface car parking; mid-20th century buildings which are poorly considered and do not address the neighbouring open space; and the fact that the Embankment as a whole is poorly integrated with the city centre.

Location: (see adjacent image)

The site is located to the north of the River Nene and is part of the wider leisure area called the Embankment. The open green space creates the boundary to the south of the site, and Bishop’s Road, that to the north. To the west is the Lido, and to the east, the Frank Perkins Parkway.

Site Capacity: 13.1 hectares

Flood Zone 1 8.8 ha (66.8%)

Flood Zone 2 1.3 ha (10.1%)

Flood Zone 3a 3.0 ha (23.1%)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0%)

Development Type:

Regeneration of this site will build on the site’s existing role as provider of leisure facilities. Improvements in the facilities and the public realm are proposed to create a fit-for-purpose entertainment, sport and leisure area which appeals to a wide variety of user, benefits Peterborough as a whole and provides an attraction for the wider sub-region

The development will over look the open space and encourage through movement and greater emphasis on the park edge.

Proposals for the site also includes a new 2-form school and some residential.

Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 82 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc however, potential land-uses have been identified for illustrative purposes only for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

Non-residential health centre, education More vulnerable 1 facility, residential

Leisure (e.g. swimming pool, gym, Less vulnerable 1, 2 arena)

Public open space and green Water compatible 1, 2, 3 infrastructure**

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

67% of this site falls within Flood Zone 1. It is important that the health centre, primary school and residential should therefore be located within this Zone 1 land, the area of lowest risk. These land uses classify as ‘more vulnerable’ according to PPS25 and are the most vulnerable of the proposed uses for this site. The outcome of this Sequential Test is therefore based on the assumption that development will follow a sequential approach. Should this not prove to the be in case when the final master plan and planning applications are submitted, the results below will no longer be valid and the sequential test will need to be repeated. If the Exception Test is then required for the site, it will need to be passed before development can proceed.

Are there any alternative sites available?

The regeneration of this area has the ability to provide wide regenerative benefits to the city and the sub-region. The options for regenerating the north bank of the River Nene through encouraging development elsewhere are limited and hence the focus is on regenerating the North Embankment site to create a strong destination point for Peterborough.

The particular benefits of the proposed North Embankment regeneration are: N ƒ A significant proportion of the site is located in an area with a low probability of flooding (67% in Flood Zone 1) ƒ Potential to transform the sense of place and urban character. ƒ Increased patronage for the open space use of the Embankment – a key assets for the city not currently given sufficient attention. ƒ Proposed leisure uses have significant potential to draw people from the wider Peterborough area and sub-region

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 83 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ The site is well located within relative proximity to sustainable transport nodes

Site to be progressed to the next stage of analysis and masterplanning?

The potential for development within this site to be located purely in Flood Zone 1, along with the general accessibility of this site by pedestrians and public transport, makes this an appropriate site to promote the redevelopment of predominantly leisure (current site use) and educational uses. The proposed uses and their location here would complement the City’s regeneration, housing and employment growth.

Opportunities may exist for enhancing existing floodplain storage and flood flow routes by a combination of ground profiling and SUDS integration within public open space. Y (conditional)

The recommendation is that this site is progressed to the next stage of analysis and masterplanning on the condition that the ‘more vulnerable’ development proposed is located within Flood Zone 1.

Exception Test Candidate N

Table 10-5 North Embankment

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 84 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 10.3.4 Courts, Police Station & Riverside Car Park

City Centre

Existing context:

This site contains Peterborough’s Crown and Magistrates courts, the police station and the Riverside surface car park near the Key Theatre. It also contains a road layout known as the Rivergate Gyratory which directs traffic one way around a loop. The gyratory layout currently traps much land and realignment of this road system could therefore see this land released for development. The area might be brought forward in two or three different phases; the police station building; relocation of the law courts; realignment of the road and development of the land released.

Location (see adjacent image):

The site is bounded by Lower Bridge Street to the west, the Lido and the Embankment to the east, the junction between Bourges Boulevard and Bishop’s Road to the north and the River Nene to the south.

Site Capacity: 3.4 hectares

Flood Zone 1 2.4 ha (71.1%)

Flood Zone 2 0.7 ha (20.0%)

Flood Zone 3a 0.3 ha (8.8%)

Flood Zone 3b 0 ha (0.0%)

Development Type:

A mixed use development is proposed to incorporate a range of uses from central university buildings, university accommodation, private residential dwellings, a hotel, retail, restaurants and cultural facilities.

Less detail is available about plans for this development as the site is likely to come forward on a longer time scale than other city centre sites.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 85 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The proposed uses will be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for illustrative purposes only for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

University buildings, university More vulnerable 1 accommodation, hotel, residential

Retail, restaurants, cultural facilities Less vulnerable 1, 2

Riverside public realm, green Water compatible 1, 2, 3a infrastructure**

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

71% of this site falls within Flood Zone 1. It is important that the university buildings, accommodation, hotel and any dwellings are located within this Zone 1 land, the area of lowest risk. These land uses classify as ‘more vulnerable’ according to PPS25 and are the most vulnerable of the proposed uses for this site. The outcome of this Sequential Test is therefore based on the assumption that development will follow a sequential approach. Should this not prove to be the case when the final master plan and planning applications are submitted, the results below will no longer be valid and the sequential test will need to be repeated. If the Exception Test is then required for the site, it will need to be passed before development can proceed.

Are there any alternative sites available?

Regeneration of the Courts, Police Station and Riverside car park site has the ability to provide wide regenerative benefits to the city and the sub-region. Options elsewhere in the city centre are limited in terms of unlocking significant amounts of land for regeneration to bring about similar benefits to those from this site. It is the redesign and redevelopment of this brownfield site alone N which provides Peterborough with the following unique opportunities to:

ƒ Reduce barriers caused by the dominance of roads in the city centre, by removing a physically dominant one-way road system. ƒ Simplify the road network through the city centre, easing wayfinding. ƒ Unlock development land

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 86 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Better connect the different areas of the city centre, in particular between the Embankment and the historic core and Rivergate centre ƒ Improve the river frontage of this site to assist with promotion of the Nene through Peterborough ƒ Create a base for the future Peterborough University. Its central location makes it suited to be the heart of the higher education institution.

Site to be progressed to the next stage of analysis and masterplanning?

Detailed site masterplanning would be required but the ability to locate all of the more vulnerable uses in Flood Zone 1, and less vulnerable uses in Flood Zones 1 or 2 makes this an appropriate site for these development uses.

The site’s central location and its potential, through redevelopment, to reduce barriers in the city centre provide an unrivalled opportunity to create a more joined-up and vibrant city centre in Peterborough. Y + condition Opportunities may exist for enhancing existing floodplain storage and flood flow routes by a combination of ground profiling and green infrastructure integration within public open space.

It is recommended that this site is progressed to the next stage of analysis and masterplanning on the condition that the ‘more vulnerable’ uses are located within Flood Zone 1.

Exception Test Candidate N

Table 10-6 Courts and Police Station site

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 87 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 10.3.5 Railworld development site

City Centre

Existing context:

The site is currently owned by Railworld. The site includes a mixture of unallocated land, existing uses such as a Wildlife Demonstration Garden, and the Railworld Visitor Centre, exhibition area and car parking. The site also includes a portion of semi- permeable and cut grass surfacing which is largely undeveloped.

Location (see adjacent image):

The River Nene splits the site into two, with both the northern and southern parts bordering the river. The Peterborough – Ely – Cambridge railway line runs down the eastern boundary of the site. Cubitt Way lies to the south and River Lane to the north.

Site Capacity: 6.0 hectares

Flood Zone 1 1.07 ha (17.8%)

Flood Zone 2 2.47 ha (41.0%)

Flood Zone 3a 1.93 ha (31.9%)

Flood Zone 3b 0.56 ha (9.3%)

Development Type:

The new development is proposed by the owners to include approximately 400 dwellings and associated car parking, public open space and enhanced access via River Lane, as well as significant expansion and enhancement of the existing Railworld Centre into a 5,000 metre squared exhibition centre, associated car parking and access via Cubitt Way.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 88 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Layout according to Masterplan

Within the Railworld site, allocation of the proposed uses has been influenced by the constraints and opportunities associated with the different areas of the site. The site can be divided up as shown:

The non-flood risk related factors that have affected this site are:

Area A is the largest area, not significantly influenced by the railway line, and in that sense the most suitable for locating a significant housing area.

Area B is a wildlife garden created by volunteer support and site owners do not want to change the use here and lose the goodwill invested into the creation of the wildlife site.

Area C, where the current visitors centre is located, is the only part of the site along the Nene Valley railway line, a key element for locating the new transport exhibition centre. The engines for the Nene Valley railway are located here at the start of the line. The new exhibition centre would be located primarily in C2 with some elements, such as outdoor exhibits in C1.

Area D is likely to contain surface parking for the new centre

The flood zones associated with each area of the site are shown in the table below:

Flood Zones (ha of site area) Flood Zones (% of site area) Site Parcel 1 2 3a 3b 1 2 3a 3b A (2.46 ha) 0.31 1.80 0.15 0.19 12.6 73.3 6.2 7.9 B (0.98 ha) 0.59 0.13 0.16 0.10 60.4 12.9 16.3 10.5 C1 (0.87 ha) 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.26 0.00 0.0 69.7 30.3 C2 (0.77 ha) 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 D (0.95 ha) 0.17 0.54 0.24 0.00 18.2 56.9 24.9 0.0

Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The final proposed uses will be explored further through detailed feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified according to the current master plan for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 89 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

Area A - Residential and associated More vulnerable 1, 2* parking

Area C, predominantly C2 - (Visitor Less vulnerable 3a centre/exhibition space

Area D - Open space**, parking for Water compatible 1, 2*, 3a exhibition centre

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for the use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

Only 13% of area A falls within Flood Zone 1 but 73% within Zone 2. It is important that any future residential development is located within these areas of low to medium risk since residential is classed as ‘more vulnerable’ according to PPS25. It would not be appropriate for residential development to be built in Flood Zone 3b and if it is proposed in 3a the site would need to pass an Exception Test.

Are there any alternative sites available?

ƒ The majority of the site is previously used land ƒ The land is in single ownership and has a high probability of being brought forward for delivery N ƒ There are no other locations within Peterborough city centre which would fulfil the criteria for an integral transport exhibition centre, displaying railway engines. The site is well placed to provide a city centre tourist destination.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 90 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site to be progressed to the next stage of analysis and masterplanning?

This site does have the potential to positively impact on Peterborough city centre through improving the tourist offering and boosting city centre dwelling numbers.

The importance of applying a sequential approach to development within the site cannot be underestimated here and future residential development should be located in the lowest flood risk areas. If no residential development is located within flood zones 3a or 3b then the development of this site as detailed above would be appropriate under PPS25. However, the site must not increase flood risk and appropriate flood risk management must be put in place. Even with application of a sequential approach it cannot not be ignored that a percentage of Area A and of Area C is in Flood Zone 3b, the functional floodplain. Future risk due to climate change in this currently undefended floodplain must be addressed by any development.

In order to better demonstrate this site’s suitability for development, a Level 2 SFRA and/ or site specific FRA needs to determine the actual flood risk areas as the site ground levels are known to have been raised but this appears not to have been fully reflected in the SFRA Level 1 published flood zones. A site specific FRA should show how risk can be minimised for residents and users of the site.

Further detailed work is also required to fully assess the deliverability of the site as a whole, including looking at accessibility constraints.

Exception Test Candidate N

Table 10-7 Railworld 10.3.6 Fengate 2

City Centre

Existing context:

This is a former landfill site fronting the River Nene. Part of the site is now used as a gravelled surface car park and the rest is laid to grass. It is currently not known whether this site meets the PPS3 definition of “previously developed land” and investigation into the landfill site’s history would need to be carried out to confirm this.

Location (see adjacent image):

The site is bounded by the Frank Perkins Parkway to the west, the River Nene to the south and the Fengate 1 housing development site to the north.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 91 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site Capacity: 11.2 hectares

Flood Zone 1 1.8 ha (16.3%)

Flood Zone 2 0.3 ha (2.5 %)

Flood Zone 3a 9.1 ha (81.2 %)

Flood Zone 3b 0 ha (0.0 %)

Development Type:

Residential development has been proposed for this site as part of the Defra funded LifE project (Long- term Initiatives for Flood-risk Environments).

The LifE project is funded by Defra’s Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management - Innovation Fund, and is part of Defra’s Making Space for Water Programme (MSW). The LifE project addresses the need for new homes, increased risk of flooding and a heightened environmental standard, by integrating three approaches: Living with Water; Making Space for Water; and Zero Carbon. Further information about these approaches and the LifE project as a whole is available at www.lifeproject.info.

Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The proposed uses will be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for illustrative purposes only for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

Life Plus Scheme Residential More vulnerable 1, 2, 3a*

Public open space, green Water compatible 2, 3a infrastructure**

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for this use ** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

Are there any alternative sites available?

ƒ The location of this site means that any future development here will directly impact the city centre’s economy, transport network and approach to the River Nene, and thus Peterborough’s regeneration aims for the City Centre. This was the reason that the IGS proposed that the site be included within the Local Development Framework City Centre

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 92 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc boundary. ƒ The site can combine both the opportunity for a significant allocation of housing in conjunction with integrated flood risk management as part of the DEFRA LifE scheme to maximise the regenerative potential of the city centre. N ƒ Regeneration of the Fengate II site in terms of a better range of uses, enhanced linkages and an improved aesthetic environment is needed to ensure that this site enhances the rest of the city centre rather than detracting from it. ƒ There are no alternative sites within the City Centre which could deliver housing development of this scale along with an improved river frontage and an increased patronage to the Embankment.

Site to be progressed to the next stage of analysis and masterplanning?

Due to the nature of the site and its inclusion as one of the three LifE project case studies, it is important that any proposed development on this site is thoroughly assessed in terms of its sustainability, benefits, and risks, to determine whether or not development should proceed. The exception test criteria provide a strong framework for this exercise so it is recommended that this site is progressed through to the Exception Test stage whilst investigating if it meets the criteria of a brownfield site.

Opportunities may exist for enhancing existing floodplain storage and flood flow routes by a combination of ground profiling and green infrastructure integration within public open space, subject to overcoming any significant contamination land issues.

Exception Test Candidate Y

Table 10-8 Fengate 2

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 93 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 10.4 Summary

Given the significant employment and regeneration benefits that the previously considered sites could bring to Peterborough, the following were recommended for detailed consideration as potential strategic development sites:

ƒ Redbrick Farm ƒ South Bank Carbon Challenge ƒ North Embankment ƒ Police station, Courts & Riverside car park site

The following developments are recognised as sites that will bring benefits to the City Centre, but their current status means that they would need to pass an Exception Test before development should proceed:

ƒ South Bank Fletton Quays ƒ Fengate

It has been identified that the flood zones are out-of-date with regards to the following site, and therefore a clearer picture of flood risk onsite needs to be generated before decisions should be made about the site’s suitability for development.

ƒ Railworld

For the reasons stated above all of these sites will now undergo further testing through this Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2. This will include retesting the sites through the sequential test using the latest flood zone information.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 94 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 11 IGS Recommended Option & Part 2 Conclusions

Part 2 of this report has documented the process of site selection carried out as part of the IGS in relation to flood risk.

There are a range of development needs within Peterborough which are required in order to fulfil both RSS targets and local needs to enhance the city and support its economic and social well being.

An Integrated Growth Study was carried out which:

ƒ Developed three Conceptual Options to provide an initial framework for growth; ƒ Undertook constraints and suitability analysis; constraints were mapped using spatial baseline information including Flood Zones; ƒ Developed the Conceptual Options into Spatial Options; an Integrated Resource Model was developed to quantitatively measure the sustainability and resource implications of the proposed options; ƒ Undertook a final evaluation of the Spatial Options; ƒ Developed a consultation proposal combining the most sustainable and popular elements of the three Spatial Options; ƒ Consulted on the proposals to determine a way forward for a final recommendation; and ƒ Developed a final Recommended Option. The sequential approach taken by the IGS with respect to Flood Zones is extracted, explained in detail and reproduced within this SFRA. The IGS was informed by the Level 1 SFRA, taking into account all sources of flooding, which in turn was informed by the EA Flood Zones published in 2008.

15 potential strategic sites were located wholly or predominantly within Flood Zone 1 (assuming combined Castor Sites); these sites did not require further application of the Sequential Test. Through the IGS process described above, a recommended pattern of growth was identified. At this stage some sites, such as Castor and North Werrington, were considered to not be the preferred sites for development.

Numbers of residential units allocated to the recommended urban extensions, the city centre and across the rest of Peterborough totalled 20,693 units; exceeding the RSS minimum targets. This allowed flexibility in delivering the growth sites.

The need for more significant sized employment sites and for city centre regeneration led to the consideration of some sites outside Flood Zone 1. An initial Sequential Test was therefore undertaken for each potential strategic site to see whether it should be further considered. Based on a flood risk sequential approach being taken to the location of uses within the individual site boundaries .Redbrick Farm, South Bank Carbon Challenge, North Embankment, the Courts, Police Station & Riverside car park site, and the Railworld site were all deemed worth further consideration for development. In all cases further work should be undertaken to address climate change impacts and residual flood risk management. It was also concluded that the Exception Test would be required for South Bank Fletton Quays and Fengate 2 to show whether the sites’ flood risk could be outweighed by other sustainability factors.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 95 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc The conclusion was also made that the Regional Freight Interchange site, not examined in detail during the IGS, would require the application of the Sequential Test and management of flood risk before further decisions could be made about development suitability.

In response to public consultation and further analysis of the sites, the quantums of residential units proposed for different areas of Peterborough were refined resulting in a decrease in dwelling density to improve deliverability. The following significant changes were made:

ƒ Decreasing the number of dwellings suggested for Norwood from 1600 to 1000 ƒ Decreasing the number of dwellings suggested for Great Haddon from 6000 to 5000

11.1 Summary of Final Growth Quantum by Flood Zone

Flood Site Dwellings Zone

1 Strategic urban extensions 6,000

1 Strategic city centre sites 3,000

1 Other city centre 700

1 Urban area 4,000

1 District & local centres 5,060

1 Rural 590

1 Subtotal 19,450

1, 2, 3 Strategic urban extensions 0

1, 2, 3 Strategic city centre sites 1,200

1, 2, 3 Other city centre 0*

1, 2, 3 Urban area 0*

1, 2, 3 District & local centres 0*

1, 2, 3 Rural 0*

1, 2, 3 Subtotal 1,200

All Zones TOTAL 20,650

Table 11-1 Quantum of growth recommended through the IGS Recommended Option. *No specific sites (outside of the strategic city centre and urban extension sites) are recommended for residential development outside Flood Zone 1. It is recognised that individual (non-strategic) sites will need to be analysed in more detail through the Site Allocations selection process before sites are finally allocated in the LDF. Windfall sites may also come forward in these locations and these will be considered through the sequential test through the normal planning process.

Table 11.1 illustrates the final allocation of dwellings that was recommended by the IGS Recommended Option.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 96 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc PART 3 LEVEL 2 STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 97 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 12 Update on Planning and Site Information Received Subsequently to Part 2

Section 4 of this report highlights the relevant planning policy and guidance framework for this SFRA Level 2. Since the Level 1 SFRA was undertaken in 2008, and the IGS was finalised, additional planning and development site information has emerged, primarily through the development of the Local Development Framework (LDF). This section describes elements which relate to the SFRA Level 2 and which may further inform the viability of the preferred strategic sites. 12.1 The Local Development Framework

The Core Strategy consulted on its Preferred Options stage in May 2008. The final submission version has now been prepared using the consultation feedback and new information from evidence bases. This is due to be published for an opportunity to make representations in January 2010. 12.1.1 Updates to Policies

Updates have been made to the policies contained within the Core Strategy. The following policies now relate to this SFRA:

ƒ Policy CS 15 City Centre ƒ Policy CS 21 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation ƒ Policy CS 22 Flood Risk

There are other policies below which are related to the wider Water Cycle Study including:

ƒ Policy CS 9 Environment Capital ƒ Policy CS 11 Infrastructure

12.1.2 Update on Housing numbers (from the IGS to the Core Strategy)

Information from other evidence base documents and from actual development plans has been fed into the LDF process and updates have been made to the requirements for housing and employment allocations in the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy Preferred Options report contains a formal, updated position from the IGS, in terms of expected development locations and quantums. These numbers, shown below, will be updated again prior to the pre-submission consultation, and reference to these updates will be made in section 18.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 98 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 12-1 Core Strategy Table 3: Preferred Option for the Location of New Dwellings

12.2 City Centre Area Action Plan: Consultants Recommended Option

Consultants, EDAW were commissioned to produce a Consultants Recommended Option that will be used to inform the final CCAAP18. This was consulted upon in January 2009, and the CCAAP will be further developed during 2010.

The housing and employment numbers from the CCAAP will be based on those agreed in the Core Strategy (see 12.1.1 above) 12.3 Updates to site information

Since the IGS more information has become available about specific development sites as the development market has progressed and site plans have become more detailed. This new information includes the following:

ƒ Great Haddon – the amount of land made available for employment development has increased from 35 ha to 65 ha

ƒ Regional Freight Interchange - there is now sufficient information available regarding proposed development at the RFI site to undertake a sequential test. Developers have proposed this 129.5 ha site for a strategic rail-connected storage and distribution development comprising of 38.2 hectares of B8 storage and distribution premises. The proposed development has been referred to locally by developers as Magna Park

ƒ South Bank - Carbon Challenge – 350 zero carbon dwellings are proposed

All new information is taken into consideration in Part 4 during the sequential tests.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 99 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 13 Level 2 SFRA Methodology

This section outlines the additional work undertaken specifically for this Level 2 SFRA. 13.1 Consultation and Data Collection

Throughout the project consultation has been carried out with:

ƒ Opportunity Peterborough (OP); ƒ Peterborough City Council (PCC); ƒ Environment Agency (EA); ƒ Internal Drainage Boards(IDBs); ƒ Anglian Water Services(AWS); and ƒ Natural England (NE). An extensive data set was collated as part of the WCS and SFRA; full details are included in Appendix G; the key data sources mainly related to this Level 2 SFRA include:

ƒ Peterborough Level 1 SFRA; ƒ Peterborough Outline WCS; ƒ Hazard Mapping – River Nene Peterborough; ƒ River Nene ISIS Strategic Model and Report28; ƒ Environment Agency’s Revised Flood Zones and climate change impact outlines where this information is currently available from the EA such as for the eastern parts of Peterborough; ƒ Information on key development sites and Internal Drainage Board systems; ƒ ABI Surface Water Management Planning Pilot Project29 – Peterborough Case Study; and ƒ Additional planning policy and LDF documents (including evidence base) described in section 12. 13.2 Key Strategic Development Sites

The key Strategic Sites that will require further assessment of flood risk by this Level 2 SFRA as discussed and confirmed in Section 9 and 10. These preferred potential urban extensions and key city centre sites are also shown in Figure B1 in Appendix B for clarity. 13.3 Model Build and Extent

A combined 1D-2D ISIS-TUFLOW hydraulic model was developed as part of the River Nene Peterborough hazard mapping project; this was created by truncating the existing River Nene ISIS strategic model to incorporate:

ƒ River Nene from Nene Parkway to Rings End Sluice; and ƒ Stanground Lode from A1(M) to confluence with River Nene.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 100 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc A model schematic is shown in Figure B2 in Appendix B; the extents were chosen to ensure that the modelled upstream and downstream boundary conditions would reflect the flood risk within the Peterborough study area appropriately.

The 2D domains linked to the 1D ISIS model were based on a combination of:

ƒ Filtered LiDAR; ƒ Filtered SAR; and ƒ Topographic survey data for Great Haddon and Magna Park development sites. Figure B2 in Appendix B illustrates the extents of the data sources used in the modelling. Grid sizes of 10m and 20m were used for urban and rural areas respectively in order to optimise the results whilst maintaining the model run time at a realistic level. The boundaries are shown on Figure B2; domains one, three, four and five comprise 10m grids with the remainder of the modelled area (domain two) a 20m grid. The land between the River Nene and Mortons Leam was included within the 1D ISIS model; this was due to the instability caused by transition of large flows into and out of the 2D domain over a small area.

Manning’s n was used as the roughness parameter for the simulations; Ordnance Survey MasterMap data was used to define the spatial variation in surface roughness. In addition increased roughness values were used to account for any obstructions to flow routes. The Manning’s n values used in the simulation are:

ƒ 0.05 Grazed fields and short grass; ƒ 0.02 Roads and concrete; ƒ 0.04 Kept fields (playing fields etc); ƒ 0.08 Urban, accounts for gardens, fences etc.; ƒ 0.055 Scrubland; ƒ 0.1 Trees and wooded Areas; ƒ 0.035 River channels; and ƒ 3 Buildings. The EA Anglian Region Northern Area guidance note for hazard mapping for flood risk assessments was used in the model development and subsequent hazard mapping. 13.4 Model Parameters

Scope The spatial variation of depth, velocity and hazard rating across the floodplain was mapped including undefended river channel flooding resulting from overtopping and failure of the existing raised defences. However, the probability of defence failure at any given breach location was not calculated.

Flood Events Overtopping analysis was undertaken for the 100-year event (1% annual probability) and 1000- year events (0.1% annual probability) with and without the impacts of climate change. Breach analysis was undertaken for the 100-year and 1000-year events inclusive of the impacts of climate change. The climate change allowances stipulated by PPS25 over next 100 years have Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 101 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc been used in modelling river flooding and in the assessment of sea level rise as detailed in the Environment Agency’s River Nene modelling report.

Breach Locations and Durations Breach locations were chosen in coordination with the EA through site inspections, evaluation of flood defence conditions and likely risk of overtopping. Breach base levels for each location were agreed with the EA based on cross-sections through the flood defence and adjacent ground levels. Figure B3 in Appendix B shows the breach locations, base levels and widths; the modelled durations to closure were 36 hours and 72 hours for breaches of less than 40m wide and 50m wide respectively. All 100-year breaches were started one hour prior to the flood peak at each location and formed to their full breach width at the flood peak. However, for some of the 1000-year model runs, the formation of the breach was simulated over a longer time frame (five or six hours) to overcome model stability issues.

Boundary Conditions The upstream and downstream 1D boundary conditions were obtained from the existing River Nene ISIS model; In line with normal Environment Agency policy and practice the standard modelling of flood events of varying fluvial magnitude has been carried out using a downstream tidal boundary of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS). The SFRA has not explicitly modelled a joint probability event (i.e. coinciding tidal and fluvial events) as the SFRA sensitivity runs that assess the impacts of climate change are considered to be appropriate for this purpose. The MHWS at West Lighthouse, which is the downstream boundary of the model, is 3.8mODN present day and 4.99mODN in the climate change scenarios. This higher level equates approximately to a present day tide level for a 20% (1 in 5) event.

The joint probability of a 1% (1 in 100) present day fluvial event with a much higher tidal event such as, a 0.5% (1 in 200) present day is considered to be extreme and beyond the flood levels to be assessed within a SFRA.

Figure 13-1 illustrates the predicted tide levels at West Lighthouse over a period of 74 hours for a range of return periods.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 102 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 13-1 River Nene Downstream Tidal Boundary (Source Halcrow)

13.5 Flood Hazard Analysis

The hazard posed by a flood of a certain depth is not uniform; it is a function of the depth, velocity, presence of debris within the floodwaters and land surface beneath the floodwater. The 2D model was used to estimate depth and velocity values at each time step in accordance with guidance published in DEFRA reports FD232130 and FD2320 31 . The underlying formula used is:

HR = d x (v + 0.5) + DF where

ƒ HR is the hazard rating; ƒ d is the depth of floodwater; ƒ v is the velocity of floodwater; and ƒ DF is the debris factor Guidance within FD2321 recommends the use of a debris factor to account for flood debris present in urban environment during a flood event and to address uncertainties and limitations in estimating risks to people. Table 3.1 of report FD2321 provides guidance on debris factors for varying flood depths and dominant land uses. For urban areas these are: ƒ DF = 0.5 for depths < 0.25m; and ƒ DF =1.0 for depths > 0.25m. These debris factors are also used in the FD2320 methodology for all land use types; this represents a conservative approach and can be used as a precautionary basis for use within a development and planning control context. Calculated values are then classified in terms of their hazard to people, again based on work carried out as part of the FD2320 and FD2321 projects. Table 13-1 illustrates the classification contained in FD2320.

Flood Hazard Rating Symbol Hazard to People Classification

Less than 0.75 Very low hazard – Caution Flood Zone with shallow flowing water or deep standing water

0.75 to 1.25 Danger for some – includes children, elderly and the infirm Flood zone with deep or fast flowing water

1.25 to 2 Danger for most – includes the general public Flood zone with deep fast flowing water

More than 2 Danger for all – includes the emergency services Flood zone with deep fast flowing water

Table13-1 SFRA Flood Hazard Rating Classification (source: FD2320, Table 3.2) One of the key differences between FD2320 and FD2321 is the threshold at which ‘danger for all’ is defined:

ƒ FD2320 >2.0; and ƒ FD2321 >2.5.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 103 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc For the breach analysis carried out for this SFRA, the ‘danger for all’ threshold used is 2.5. For the overtopping analysis, the threshold used is 2. The implications of this are further discussed in Section 13.7.

These hazard data and associated maps have been prepared to aid the application of the Sequential Test to steer planned development towards areas of lower flood risk within the EA flood zones at a site specific level. They have also been used to assess the potential for provision of strategic flood risk management opportunities and to facilitate the part (c) of the Exception Test, where applicable so that the developments are safe over their design life without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The relevant guidance notes and policies for these sites that will need further consideration through site specific Flood Risk Assessments at the planning application stage have been prepared as part of this SFRA. 13.6 Assessment of Surface Water Flood Risk

Scope The Association of British Insurers (ABI) appointed HCL to provide an evidence base for use in informing their input to the forthcoming debate on the requirements of the Floods and Water Bill with respect to surface water management planning (SWMP). As part of the ABI study, Peterborough was selected as one of the case studies used to consider current and future surface water flood risks and to develop recommendations for appropriate management practice for further consideration.

Pluvial Modelling A preliminary 2D pluvial model covering the Peterborough urban area was developed using the DHI software MIKE21. The following model parameters were used:

ƒ Grid size of 4m by 4m to enable optimisation of the computational time and the need to resolve features in the urban environment; ƒ The topographic surface data used in the simulations was obtained from LiDAR where available. The base data was created using DTM (digital terrain model) information; this is ‘bare earth’ only and consequently does not include features such as houses, roads and vegetation; ƒ Buildings were assigned a nominal height of 2m to enable them to act as barriers to flow but without creating the stability issues that are inherent with abrupt changes in height; ƒ Roads were lowered by 125mm (standard curb height) as an approximation to how they could act as conduits for flood waters; ƒ A constant and global Manning’s n roughness coefficient of 0.03 was applied; ƒ The flooding and drying depths were set to 0.003m and 0.002m respectively. These values determine whether an individual cell in the model domain is wet or dry. In this case, any cells with a water depth greater than 0.003m (3mm) are wet; ƒ The 30-year, 100-year and 1000-year events were simulated; ƒ A time step of 0.1 seconds was used; and ƒ The simulation time was three hours; this captured a full 30 minute storm with a further 2.5 hours to assess where the pluvial flood waters would accumulate.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 104 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Critical Drainage Areas Critical drainage areas were identified through desktop review, modelling and consultation with the stakeholders. These areas are shown on Figure E1 in Appendix E and will need further consideration through next stages of the Surface Water Management Plan and detailed Flood Risk Assessments. Areas where specific sub-catchment strategies could be developed were also identified. 13.7 Assumptions and Limitations

Hazard Analysis Due to the evolving guidance in this field, these SFRA hazard maps initially used a threshold of 2.5 between ‘danger for most’ and ‘danger for all’ in accordance with Table 3.2 of FD2321. However Table 13.1 of FD2320 takes a more precautionary flood hazard rating of 2.0 for this threshold. Therefore, following the application of the Sequential and Exception Tests, if any proposed development in Peterborough is affected by ‘danger for most’ and ‘danger for all’ classifications then these areas may be subjected to further analysis when developing flood mitigation measures through site specific flood risk assessments. Alternatively, a highly precautionary approach could be taken by classifying these affected areas as ‘danger for all’ irrespective of the classification shown on the Level 2 SFRA maps especially when considering ‘windfall’ sites or future sites as part of RSS or LDF reviews.

Given that Peterborough is located at the upstream end of the River Nene tidal limit, joint probability analysis is not critical due to the expected weather patterns in this region. In addition, fluvial sources are dominant in influencing critical flooding in Peterborough therefore joint probability analysis is unlikely to provide the worst case flood hazard compared to fluvial flooding for a specific overall return period under consideration. Therefore, as highlighted in Section 13.4 the SFRA modelling includes assessment of both sea level rise and river flows as per PPS25 requirements in conjunction with Mean High Water Spring for both 1% and 0.1% annual probability events.

The hazard modelling undertaken as part of this SFRA excludes:

ƒ Sources of river flooding other than from the River Nene and the Stanground Lode; ƒ Any influence due to surface water and land drainage sources; ƒ Specific scenarios under which unexpected hazards are produced such as culvert blockages; and ƒ Specific consideration of additional capacity offered by the watercourses and pumps in Internal Drainage Board ownership. As a precautionary measure, it was assumed that the Internal Drainage Board assets are at capacity at the onset and throughout the duration of a breach. However, where the DTM has registered a drain or a ditch, the storage and conveyance capacities above the surveyed water level have been accounted for in flood conveyance and spreading. Site specific Flood Risk Assessments could be used to understand additional impact of such considerations in hazard mapping if it is deemed to be considered necessary to evaluate detailed risk.

LiDAR coverage across the study area is currently limited, particularly north of River Nene North Barrier Bank and along Stanground Lode.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 105 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Surface Water Modelling The modelling is undertaken independently to the Lower Nene hazard mapping and the approach taken was conservative in assuming that all rain falling onto the surface contributed directly to runoff; no allowance was made for infiltration or drainage networks. This was predominantly due to resource constraints in relation to the ABI and SFRA project timescale.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 106 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 14 Outputs 14.1 Flood Defence Condition Appraisal

Figure C1 in Appendix C illustrates the extents of existing flood defences and maintained main river channels in the Peterborough study area. Table 14-1 provides additional details of the EA raised flood defences such as Standard of Protection (SoP) and Condition Assessment based on the information held in National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD) and the additional consultations made with the Environment Agency. This table also gives an indication of the proposed sites that are protected by these defences.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 107 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Defence Watercourse SoP Condition Assessment Strategic Site Type Benefitting

River Nene left bank: Toll House to 0.5% Grade 3 - Fair Redbrick Farm Dog in a Doublet (1 in 200)

River Nene left bank: Fitzwilliam 0.5% Grade 3 - Fair Fengate 2 Bridge to Toll House . (Closure into (1 in 200) High Ground)

River Nene right bank: Fitzwilliam 0.5% Grade 3 - Fair Bridge to Dog in a Doublet (1 in 200)

Mortons Leam right bank (South 0.5% Grade 3 - Fair Regional Freight Barrier Bank): Stanground Lock to (1 in 200) (Also see Whittlesey Interchange Whittlesey Washes Flood Study Report)

Car Dyke north bank: Werrington 3.33% Grade 3 - Fair Werrington Bridge, Bridge Road to Whitepost Road (1 in 30) Norwood Farm

Car Dyke right bank: Werrington 3.33% Grade 3 - Fair Bridge Road to opposite Hawkshead ( 1 in 30) Way

Maxey Cut left bank: Loham Sluice 1% Grade 3 - Fair

Raised (man made) - Fluvial Embankments to Confluence with Welland (1 in 100)

Maxey Cut right bank: Loham Sluice 1% Grade 3 - Fair to Peakirk Viaduct (1 in 100)

Folley River both banks: Peakirk 1% Grade 3 - Fair Bridge to Peakirk PS (1 in 100)

South Drain both banks: North Fen 3.33% Grade 3 - Fair Road to Peakirk PS (1 in 30)

River Nene left bank: Dog in a 0.67% Grade 3 - Fair Doublet to Halls Farm (1 in 150) (Recently re-profiled. Downstream of Cross Guns Road bridge newly re- graded) made) - Tidal Embankments River Nene right bank: Dog in a 0.67% Grade 3 - Fair Sea defence (man Doublet to Rings End (1 in 150)

Table 14-1 Summary of Raised Defences (source National Flood and Coastal Defence Database/ Environment Agency) Additional site inspections have been undertaken as part this Level 2 SFRA to assess the condition of the raised defences on the River Nene and the observations from these have been taken into consideration together with the NFCDD information and overtopping modelling results when determining the breach locations described in Section 13.4.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 108 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Whittlesey Washes Flood Study Report Whittlesey Washes is classified as a statutory reservoir under the Reservoirs Act and following on from the 2005 inspection, a flood study was recommended. Halcrow undertook a review of the South Barrier Bank (SBB) in December 200732 to assess vulnerable reaches and identify any requirements for future improvement works. The SBB forms the flood defences on the right bank of Mortons Leam the majority of which fall outside the PCC area; the SBB upstream of chainage 17,500 is within the study area. The assessment was based on:

ƒ 1000-Year water level from the Nene Catchment Flood Map Improvement Project; ƒ Bank top level survey carried out in November 2005; and ƒ Site inspection to determine physical condition. The study concluded that the existing freeboard cannot accommodate wave surcharge over 12.8km out of a total 22km length. A vulnerability assessment was undertaken based on the shortfall between the top of the existing bank and design flood levels inclusive of freeboard; vulnerability was defined as the combined risk of the likelihood of breaching and the consequence of a breach. Out of a total 12.8km which was lower than the design level, 2.6km had a high vulnerability, 2.9km had a medium to high vulnerability and the remaining 7.3km had a low to nominal vulnerability. The recommendations of this study are currently being further investigated by the EA and further information from this ongoing work may be obtained from the EA should this be necessary for undertaking site-specific flood risk assessments.

The proposed RFI site is located adjacent to the sections of SBB where the consequences of a breach are high. Along these sections, the risk of overtopping is highly spatially varied although the physical condition is generally good. Level 2 SFRA modelling has demonstrated that no other potential strategic sites within Peterborough are at risk from overtopping of or a breach in the SBB. Therefore the potential failure of SBB is deemed to have a relatively small influence on development in Peterborough as it mainly protects low-lying fields outside PCC boundary. 14.2 Flood Risk Management Measures

The Whittlesey washlands on the River Nene downstream of Peterborough provide significant flood storage, reducing the peak flow in the Nene and consequently reducing flood risk to Peterborough. Flows and levels are managed through the operation of a series of sluices in reaction to observed high water levels. 14.3 Flood Hazard Mapping

Overtopping Figures B4 to B7 in Appendix B illustrate the spatial distribution of the maximum values for overtopping hazard rating (as described in 13.5) for the 100-year (1%) and 1000-year (0.1%) with and without the predicted impacts of climate change. Table 14-2 summarises the strategic sites at risk from overtopping based on Level 2 Hazard mapping on the Lower River Nene.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 109 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site Name Return Period during which site is at Risk 100-Year 100-Year (CC)1000-Year 1000-Year (CC)

Regional Freight Interchange 33

Great Haddon 33 33

Courts and Police Station 33

North Embankment 3

Fengate 2 33 33

Rivergate 3

Fletton Quays 33 33

Carbon Challenge 3

Railworld 33

Table 14-2 Strategic Sites at risk of overtopping Breach Figures B5 and B6 in Appendix B illustrate the spatial distribution of the maximum values for hazard rating, depth and velocity as above for all breach locations in the northern and southern Nene embankments respectively during a 100-year (1%) event inclusive of an allowance for climate change. They show maximum values which would occur at different times in practice during the durations of each breach under consideration. It should be noted that all breaches occurring simultaneously would be an extremely unlikely worst case scenario and that the maximum values from each individual breach are likely to be higher than the maximum values from a simultaneous failure of all breaches. Therefore the mapping presented in these figures should be used very cautiously.

Figures B7 to B26 show the maximum values of the same information for each breach individually.

In summary,

ƒ A breach at N1, N2, N3 or N4 will result in inundation of the Redbrick Farm site ƒ Flood risk at the remaining Strategic Sites is not increased as a result of a breach at any location in the northern embankment; and ƒ A breach at S1 or S2 will increase flood risk at the Regional Freight Interchange site. The implications of breach results on Redbrick Farm and Regional Freight Interchange sites are discussed in subsequent sections of this report. 14.4 Critical Drainage Areas

Figure E1 in Appendix E identifies critical drainage areas for further investigation through site specific FRAs and the SWMP process. The Strategic Sites containing or adjacent to the identified critical drainage areas are Rivergate, Railworld and Alwalton Hill. However, this should not be viewed as a definitive list as the modelling carried out was at a broad scale only. All new developments should ensure that appropriate surface water management strategies are prepared (see sections 18, 19 and 20).

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 110 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 14.5 Application of Outputs

The outputs described in Sections 14.1to 14.4 are used to:

ƒ Apply the Sequential and Exception Test (Part 4 - Sections 16 and 17); ƒ Identify specific and wider flood risk and surface water management issues and future needs in Peterborough and make a series of policy recommendations (Part 5 – Sections 18 to 26); and ƒ Draw overall Level 2 SFRA conclusions and recommendations (Part 6 – Section 27 and 28).

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 111 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 15 Summary of Level 2 Findings and Assessments

Additional planning and development site information has been obtained as part of the Level 2 SFRA process to augment the evidence base for the Core Strategy that also includes other ongoing parallel studies such as the Water Cycle Study.

The majority of proposed Strategic Sites are not located in areas directly protected by the existing raised defences, however the operation of the washlands during flood events assists in managing and reducing flood risk to Peterborough. Regional Freight Interchange and Redbrick Farm sites are protected by the existing raised defences, which have a general 200-year Standard of Protection according to information currently held in the EA’s NFCDD.

A combined 1D-2D ISIS-TUFLOW model of the River Nene and Stanground Lode was constructed and used to assess the flood risk due to overtopping of, and breaches in, the existing defences. This model has been used to predict flood risk to the Strategic Sites for 100-yr and 1000-yr with and without climate change impacts.

Potential strategic sites at risk of flooding due to overtopping are; Regional Freight Interchange, Great Haddon, Courts and Police Station, North Embankment, Fengate 2, Rivergate, Railworld, Fletton Quays and Carbon Challenge. They are subjected flooding to different extents depending on the flood event that is being considered.

A breach at N1, N2, N3 or N4 will put Redbrick Farm at risk and a breach at S1 or S2 will increase flood risk at the Regional Freight Interchange site.

Broad scale surface water modelling was carried out and identified a number of critical drainage areas across the city; Rivergate and Alwalton Hill are located close to these areas.

The detailed modelling undertaken as part of Level 2 SFRA has informed the contents of the remaining sections of this report.

Appendix B includes the key outputs of flood hazard mapping undertaken during the Level 2 SFRA and associated Lower Nene – Flood Hazard Mapping project in relation to the potential strategic sites in Peterborough. Appendix C provides hazard mapping specifically for the CCAAP sites.

Appendices D, E, F and G include the remaining Level 2 SFRA outputs and relevant information.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 112 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc PART 4 UPDATED SEQUENTIAL AND EXCEPTION TESTS

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 113 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 16 Updates to Sites’ Flood Risk Status

Work carried out by the EA during June 2009 and again during Autumn 2009, resulted in updates to the defined Flood Zones. Therefore an assessment of site status for the 2008 (Level 1 SFRA and IGS) and Autumn 2009 Flood Zones was made and compared. The sections below give a summary of the main changes that have resulted.

Appendix F shows the details of each site and its updated status. For continuity the sites are grouped under the same headings as in section 9. The percentage Flood Zone coverage based on the 2008 outlines is discussed along with the revised percentage Flood Zone coverage based on the 2009 outlines. 16.1 Potential Sites that were Wholly or Predominantly in Flood Zone 1

There has been no change in the flood zones to:

ƒ Castor

ƒ North Werrington

ƒ Norwood

ƒ Paston Reserve

ƒ Alwalton Hill

ƒ The Station Quarter (West and East)

ƒ District Hospital Site

ƒ South Bank - London Road Allotments

ƒ South Bank - Football Ground

ƒ Rivergate (see section below on surface water flood risk)

Changes to Flood Zones have affected two sites: Stanground South, and Great Haddon.

Stanground South Stanground South was previously 100% within Flood Zone 1. There are now small areas of the site within Flood Zones 2 and 3a, so that the site is now 99.3% within Flood Zone 1. Effectively this site is predominantly within Flood Zone 1 and therefore still appropriate for predominantly residential development. Since this site already has outline planning permission this new information will need to be borne in mind as the site is being considered for full permission. The proposed site layout should look to avoid locating residential development within the land now classified as Flood Zone 2 or 3 and should ensure suitable flood mitigation measures are considered on site to account for areas any increased flood risk to the site.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 114 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Great Haddon The area of land within Flood Zone 1 has increased at Great Haddon from 419.2 hectares to 421.61 hectares. The area of Flood Zone 3a has also increased slightly. These two changes are due to a decrease in Flood Zone 3b. There has been only a very small change (increase) to Flood Zone 2. Great Haddon is still considered to be predominantly within Flood Zone 1 as the location of dwellings can be and should be chosen to avoid the relatively small areas of Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b (5% of the site).

Surface Water Flood Risk - Rivergate The Environment Agency’s ASTSWF (Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flood Risk) data shows that the Rivergate area (including Asda) has experienced historic surface water flooding. This does not appear to be demonstrated within the latest EA Flood Zones, which indicate that the site is still within Flood Zone 1. It is also known what the cause of the historic flooding was or exactly when it occurred as there appears to be no local data regarding the event(s). Further investigation into surface water flood risk should therefore be undertaken before any future plans are developed for this site. It is important to determine whether such an event is likely to reoccur again at Rivergate or whether action has since been taken to remove this risk. This investigation could be undertaken as part of future work on a Surface Water Management Plan for Peterborough. 16.2 Sites That Were Partially or Predominantly in Flood Zones 2 and 3

A description of how the Flood Zone boundaries have changed for all of the sites covered in this group is given below. As a result, the Sequential Test will be updated as required and the results included in the subsequent sections.

Redbrick Farm The percentages of the site in Flood Zones 1 and 2 have reduced considerably, and the area in Flood Zone 3a has increased considerably.

Regional Freight Interchange 55% of this site falls into Flood Zone 3a. This site will therefore need a sequential test and this will be carried out in the next section.

North Embankment This site is now 100% within Flood Zone 1. Risk levels have reduced and the site will still pass the sequential test.

Carbon Challenge The percentages of this site in Flood Zones 2 and 3 have decreased significantly so that the site is now 96.5% in Flood Zone 1

Fletton Quays A much greater area of this site (83.9%) in now in Flood Zone 1, with the area of Flood Zone 3a having decreased accordingly.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 115 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Court and Police Station The area of the site in Flood Zone 1 has increased to 90% (from 71%) with much smaller areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3a..

Railworld An increase in the proportion of the total site area in Flood Zone 1 (increasing from 26.8% to 45.3%) and a corresponding decrease in the proportion of the site in Flood Zone 3a. Looking specifically at the areas where development is most likely to occur: - The probability of flooding reduces significantly for Area A changing from 12.6% being in Flood Zone 1 to 74.5%. - The indoor exhibition area C2 which previously fell within Flood Zone 3a, now falls completely within Flood Zone 2. Area C1 was fully in Flood Zones 3a or 3b and now 44% falls within Flood Zone 2.

- The area proposed for parking (area D) no longer contains any land within Flood Zone 3. 80% is within Zone 2 and 20% within Zone 1.

The Environment Agency’s ASTSWF data also highlights that this site has experienced historic surface water flooding.

Fengate 2 A considerably greater area of this 11.2 ha site is now in Flood Zone 1 (10.49 ha compared to 1.82 ha) and accordingly much less of the site now appears in Flood Zone 3a. 16.3 Sites That Were Partially or Predominantly in Flood Zones 2 and 3

The following sites have been identified as key sites with the potential to assist in delivering employment growth in Peterborough; each site is partially within Flood Zone 2 and/or 3. This subsection will therefore take these sites through the updated Sequential Test to determine their suitability with regards to development from a flood risk perspective (i.e. updated from those found in Part 2).

The Flood Zones are indicated by:

Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b

In each case, the suitability of a specific land use to the Flood Zone(s) in which it is proposed is indicated by the following notation and sequential approach. This information is obtained from PPS25 tables D2 and D3:

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 116 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc A conclusion for each site is reached and indicated by way of a solid coloured traffic light scheme:

Development can proceed on flood risk grounds. Note that conditions may apply regarding the application of a sequential approach to development within the site. Further work is required to determine the site’s suitability or sustainability for development. Development should not be permitted

SEQUENTIAL APPROACH – EXPLANATORY NOTE FOR SEQUENTIAL TESTS

The method used below aims to take into consideration the fact that completed masterplans or planning applications are available for only some of the development sites examined here. Where a site layout is available, it is used to determine the Flood Zone in which each of the proposed uses would sit. Where plans are not available a sequential approach has been applied within the site boundary to ensure that the higher vulnerability uses are located in the lowest areas of risk. For example, where ‘highly vulnerable’ or ‘more vulnerable’ uses exist the area of site in Flood Zone 1 is examined and if it should be possible to locate all of this land use within the lowest risk land then this assumption is made.

The result of the Sequential Test is therefore dependent upon the application of a sequential approach and this is made clear throughout the Sequential Tests. Where the vast majority of the site is located in Flood Zone 1 then it is taken that the layout within the site can accommodate all more vulnerable uses within this zone; and as such the site is deemed to pass the Sequential Test. If the decision to progress is conditional, for example, upon more vulnerable uses being located in Flood Zone 1, then this is stated in the “Site to be progressed” box, and the result is expressed as “Y (yes) + condition”, instead of just “Y” (yes), indicating that it can progress for further consideration. It should be noted that if in the future the condition is not met by masterplans or applications submitted for the site (e.g. if ‘more vulnerable’ uses are proposed for Flood Zone 3a), then the sequential test result will no longer be valid and the site will need to undertake a revised sequential test. Sites may then also have to undergo and pass an Exception Test before development can proceed.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 117 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 16.3.1 Redbrick Farm

Urban Extension – Employment

Existing context:

Redbrick Farm is predominantly agricultural (arable) but also includes a few small buildings, and a small reservoir used for farm irrigation. The site contains and borders a number of drainage ditches and small watercourses. To the east of the site the land is flat open countryside and is defined as the Fens Landscape Character Area.

Location (see adjacent image):

This site is located to the east of the city, east of Edgerley Drain. Immediately adjacent to the site is Peterborough’s large existing industrial area known as the Eastern Industry and west of that the A1139 Frank Perkins Parkway arterial road. The residential area of Newark and the Oxney industrial estate lie to the site’s north.

Site Capacity: 59.4 hectares

Flood Zone 1 3.3 ha (5.6 %)

Flood Zone 2 3.3 ha (5.6 %)

Flood Zone 3a 52.8 ha (88.8 %)

Flood Zone 3b 0 ha (0.0 %)

Development Type:

A significant employment based urban extension is proposed for this site, to interact with the neighbouring Eastern Industry site. The types of employment proposed for this site have changed and employment proposed is now of B1 (offices), B2 (industrial) and B8 (warehousing and distribution) uses. The employment area is expected to cover 29 ha.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 118 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The proposed uses and exact layout would need to be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for illustrative purposes only for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

Offices, warehousing and distribution. Less vulnerable 1, 2, 3a*

Green space and landscape Water compatible 1, 2, 3a* corridors**

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for this use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

Are there any alternative sites available?

ƒ Redbrick Farm is located next to an existing employment area which would allow the new developments to be in keeping with the existing area as well as allowing the creation of appropriate transport and business links between the sites ƒ A significant proportion of this site is owned by one party, the Church Commissioners. As a result this site could be very deliverable and growth targets could potentially be met much earlier than if employment across the City was delivered piecemeal across many smaller sites. ƒ Within the range of sites assessed and then promoted for employment use by the Employment Land Review, 2008, there were no alternative sites of this scale which could deliver quantity of employment growth (circa 29 ha) needed to meet Peterborough’s targets. However, the employment numbers stated in the ELR are now out-of-date and the requirement for a large employment site is not so great. This is due in part to the increase in Y size of employment land being created at Great Haddon, which will create a significant employment location for Peterborough. On the otherhand, there are dangers in concentrating all new employment land in one location and in one ownership (at Great Haddon) and so Redbrick Farm would provide an element of choice to manage this risk. ƒ The latest flood zone information shows that the majority of this site area now falls within Flood Zone 3a (89%) whereas previously it was only 35% (when the IGS/ ELR/ Core Strategy Preferred Options were being prepared). Only 7 hectares of land is now within Flood Zones 1 and 2. ƒ The status of this site with regards to flood risk has changed since the ELR assessment and there are other sites available for employment development that have less flood risk associated with them. It is important that these other options are explored to ensure that the best possible solution can be found to employment growth in Peterborough.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 119 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ This site is in a defended area and hence the breach analysis results (discussed in subsections 13.4 and 14.3 and Appendix C) should be considered in conjunction with the Environment Agency. Appropriate site emergency and evacuation plans would need to be developed if the site does come forward for development.

Site to be progressed for development?

Whilst acknowledging the potential advantages of this site, it is recommended that Redbrick Farm is however removed as a strategic location from the Core Strategy. This is due to uncertainly over the performance of this site in light of the new flooding considerations. It is recommended that all of the remaining plausible options for employment growth are analysed and sequentially tested as part of the Site Allocations DPD process of identifying employment sites. This will allow a renewed comparison of potential employment sites so that the most sustainable options for Peterborough can be selected.

Exception Test Candidate N/A

Table 16-1 Redbrick Farm 16.3.2 Regional Freight Interchange

Urban Extension – Employment

Existing context:

The site is current used for the growing of various crops with minor access tracks and buildings dispersed across the site.

Location (see adjacent image):

The site is located on the eastern edge of Peterborough in the River Nene catchment. On its northern boundary is the main railway line between Peterborough and Cambridge. On its western and southern boundaries is the area of Stanground and to the east agricultural land.

Site Capacity: 129.5 hectares

Flood Zone 1 42.7 ha (33.0 %)

Flood Zone 2 15.8 ha (12.2 %)

Flood Zone 3a 71.0 ha (54.8 %)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0 %)

Development Type:

Magna Park is a proposed strategic rail connected storage and distribution development comprising of 38.2 hectares of B8 storage and distribution premises. The site also proposes 2.6 hectares of potential future

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 120 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc development land along its western edge.

Development Appropriateness and Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site: The exact layout is yet to be identified through detailed masterplanning of the site. At this stage however, indicative layout and uses have been proposed and these are considered here in terms of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

The location of the railway line is key to the site layout, with buildings currently proposed alongside the line to allow easier access for goods to and from the rail freight services.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability Proposed location (PPS25) within flood zones

Potential offices, warehousing and Less vulnerable 1, 2, 3a* distribution.

Green infrastructure** Water compatible 1*, 2, 3a

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for this use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

Are there any alternative sites available?

Since the Regional Freight Interchange would be a development of regional status the area of search for alternative sites is the East of England. The site in Peterborough therefore has to be assessed against other alternative sites in the region. The operational premise requires a site located next to the rail and road network and hence there are a limited number of potential sites. N Information on all of the sites examined has been prepared by the developer for Peterborough City Council, the Environment Agency and other partners to consider. The site in Peterborough is considered to provide the best opportunity to be adjacent to an appropriate rail line, to have reasonable access to the local road network and to be located an appropriate distance from the Port of Felixstowe. There are no current allocations of land for employment use of an appropriate size with access to the rail freight routes.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 121 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site to be progressed for development?

ƒ Scale of the scheme means it will impact on and bring economic benefits to the whole region ƒ The developer asserts that this site provides the best opportunity to deliver two important aspects of the Regional Spatial Strategy; growth of Peterborough’s employment opportunities and a switch of freight transport from road to rail. ƒ The site has not been highlighted up to this stage as an essential component of delivering the wider Peterborough growth strategy as set out in the Core Strategy Preferred Options document. The site would however have potential to deliver a significant number of jobs in employment class B8 as well as some in class B1. ƒ The Core Strategy’s economic scenario Environment Plus looks to encourage employment within the B1 and B2 classes. This site is predominantly B8, and hence it is not recommended the LDF relies heavily on this site to meet its employment growth targets. ƒ It is understood that development is likely to be located near to the rail line for access. Further work needs to be done to ensure that this is the best approach to site design, using a sequential approach to flood risk within the site wherever possible. The potential should be explored for the key buildings (such as the offices) to be located within the lower risk Flood Zones 1 and 2. ƒ Given that 45% of the site (which equates to 58.5 hectares) is in Flood Zones 1 and 2, this should allow for an appropriate site layout to be developed whilst accounting for the SFRA flood hazard overtopping and breach mapping information. ƒ The site is in a defended area and hence the SFRA breach analysis results (discussed in subsections 13.4 and 14.3 and Appendix C) should be considered in conjunction with the Environment Agency Flood Zones and flood defence data, and site emergency and evacuation plans should be developed accordingly. While it is not recommended that the Core Strategy relies on the Regional Freight Interchange site to deliver significant amount of its employment growth targets, it is recognised that due to the site’s strategic regional nature, this site must be considered by the Core Strategy. Peterborough City Council should continue to work with the prospective developers and Fenland District Council (into whose administrative area the development site overlaps) to ensure that any planning application coming forward is sustainable. Since it is recognised that the site is vulnerable to flooding, it is important that further work is undertaken through the site’s own FRA, to demonstrate the sustainability of this site and the ability to reduce risk to its future users. This needs to include assessing the site layout and detailed site topographical data using a sequential approach within the site boundary, to ensure the best possible layout and design for the site with regards to flood risk. In conjunction with the benefit of enhanced flood defences and robust site emergency and evacuation plans, the site should be able to be developed safely without significantly increasing the flood risk elsewhere and whilst considering future climate change impacts.

Exception Test Candidate N/A

Table 16-2 Regional Freight Interchange

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 122 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 16.4 Sequential Tests for Key City Centre Sites 16.4.1 Initial Assessment

The following sites have been identified as key sites with the potential to assist in delivering growth in the City Centre; each site is partially within Flood Zone 2 or 3. This subsection will therefore take these sites through the Sequential Test, using the latest Flood Zone information, to determine their status with regards to development. The majority of these sites are regeneration sites; areas of brownfield land which can be improved significantly through development and also deliver major benefits to the city.

The location and key details of the City Centre sites are shown in Figure 10-1. The Tables E1 and E2 in Appendix E compare the old and new status of the sites with regards to the flood zones. Major changes are summarised in subsection 16.2.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 123 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 16.4.2 The South Bank

South Bank - Carbon Challenge Site

City Centre Site

Existing context:

The majority of the site was former railway sidings. The remainder used to house the Elliott Group factory and offices, but the buildings have since been removed, and just the concrete stands now remain. This is an underutilised brownfield site in a key city centre position as part of the South Bank area. Land ownership is in the public sector.

Location: (see adjacent image)

Site lies to the south of the River Nene and is one part of the area known as South Bank. The site does not border the river, with its northern boundary being the Peterborough to March railway line. The football ground is located to its south-west; to the south is the community of Fletton, and the eastern boundary is the A1139 (Frank Perkins Parkway) outer ring road.

Site Capacity: 8.2 hectares

Flood Zone 1 7.9 ha (96.5 %)

Flood Zone 2 0.3 ha (3.5 %)

Flood Zone 3a 0.0 ha (0.0 %)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0 %)

Development Type:

The site proposes a new community of 350 zero carbon Code Level 6 homes plus accompanying facilities which include open space, community buildings and a crèche. Design and architecture will be to exemplary environmental standards. The Carbon Challenge scheme is a flagship national project which will generate an understanding of how the building industry can respond to zero carbon homes and which provides an important catalyst for this wider South Bank Opportunity Area.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 124 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

Very high level masterplanning has been carried out for this site (as part of the South Bank Masterplan) to give an indication of what types of uses might be found here and how this could be delivered. The exact proposed uses and layouts are currently being investigated through detailed masterplanning by the developer and consortium of landowners. Here the potential land-uses suggested for the site are identified for illustrative purposes only for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

Dwellings, community centre, More vulnerable 1 childcare facilities

Open space & green Water compatible 1*, 2 infrastructure**

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for the use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

96.5% of this site falls within Flood Zone 1 and no land is located within Flood Zone 3. It is important that a sequential approach is used within the site, and therefore that the dwellings and childcare facilities (‘more vulnerable’ uses) should be located within the area of lowest risk. The outcome of this Sequential Test (below) is based upon this sequential approach being used.

Are there any alternative sites available?

This site sits within the South Bank regeneration area, which is deemed to be able to bring about important economic, social and environmental benefits to Peterborough. The South Bank was recognised within the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005 as a key ‘Opportunity Area’. The options for regenerating this part of the River Nene corridor through encouraging development elsewhere are limited and hence the focus is on regenerating the South Bank so that the different areas of this site complement each other and together create a significant destination within Peterborough and a strong link in the fabric of the City Centre. N

The site itself is a significant development opportunity within the city centre and the opportunities it brings will create much wider regenerative benefits to the city: ƒ Public land ownership across the whole site makes the deliverability of the site more viable. ƒ The vast proportion (96.5%) of the site has a low probability to flood and all non- water compatible development can be incorporated in this area. ƒ The residential component will be a major contributor to the vitality of the city centre.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 125 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ The eco-credentials of the Carbon Challenge scheme will provide a tool with which to promote the city nationally. ƒ This is an existing brownfield site. There is no comparable site alongside the river which offers the same potential to make the most of the river area as part of the city centre.

Site to be progressed for development?

A recommendation is made that this site is progressed due to: the significant regeneration benefits of this site to the city centre as well as to Peterborough as a whole; the latest Flood Zones maps show that the majority of the site is in Flood Zone 1 enabling more vulnerable Y development to be located purely here; and the site’s ability to be very accessible in terms of connecting with arterial roads, existing public transport links and pedestrian linkages. This recommendation is based on the use of a sequential approach to development within the site, which should easily be met by proposed Carbon Challenge layouts.

Exception Test Candidate N

Table 16-3 Carbon Challenge

South Bank – Fletton Quays

City Centre Site

Existing context:

This is a brownfield site along the south bank of the river, occupied by two large retail warehouses, old railway sheds and a Mill. Land ownership is primarily in the public sector except for the Mill owned by Milton Estates.

Location: (see adjacent image)

This city centre site is bordered by the River Nene to the north, the Peterborough-March railway line to the south, London Road/Town Bridge to the west, and the A1139 (Frank Perkins Parkway) outer ring road to the east.

Site Capacity: 6.5 hectares

Flood Zone 1 5.4 ha (83.9 %)

Flood Zone 2 0.7 ha (10.4 %)

Flood Zone 3a 0.4 ha (5.8 %)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0 %)

Development Type:

As a key destination in the city, the plan is to open up the river, providing restaurants and leisure uses that

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 126 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc appeal to residents and visitors. An eco-themed university faculty, the Institute of Sustainable Construction, is also being designed for this area as part of Peterborough’s new university. This is intended to sit alongside the second phase Eco-Innovation Centre providing offices to start-up environmental businesses. It is hoped that Fletton Quays will become an Eco-hub for the City to match Peterborough Environment Capital aspirations. The inclusions of residential units and other leisure/retail/cultural uses within the development will keep a constant presence on the site, ensuring passive surveillance. The intention is to create a welcoming site that is vibrant during the day and evening and feels safe at night. Residential use also increases the viability of this site and the rest of the city centre, which is key to meeting Peterborough’s regeneration needs as well as growth targets. All of the residential accommodation proposed will be on upper floors, to sit above the ground floor shops, offices or undercroft parking.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 127 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability- Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

High level masterplanning has been carried out for this site as part of the South Bank Masterplan to give an indication of what types of uses might be found here and how this could be delivered. The following land uses from the Masterplan, examined with regards to their location within the site, are considered below in terms of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability Proposed location (PPS25) within flood zones

Residential and hotel More vulnerable 1, 2, 3a accommodation (both upper floors only)

University faculty (not More vulnerable 1, 2*, 3a accommodation)

Offices, leisure, restaurants (on Less vulnerable 1, 2, 3a ground floor)

Green infrastructure, open Water compatible 1, 2, 3a space**, water taxi unit

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for the use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

N.B. More detailed plans and layouts are currently being considered for the site so that following this new information, an agreed form of development can come forward that minimises risk and ensures that appropriate resources and land space are dedicated to flood mitigation and safety measures

Are there any alternative sites available?

This site sits within the South Bank regeneration area, which is needed to be able to bring important economic, social and environmental benefits to Peterborough. The South Bank was recognised within the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005 as a key ‘Opportunity Area’ and the importance of this site still applies. The options for regenerating the southern bank of the River Nene through encouraging development elsewhere are limited, and hence the focus N is on regenerating the different parts of the South Bank so that they complement each other and together create a significant destination within Peterborough and a strong link in the fabric of the City Centre. This particular site forms a unique collection of opportunities likely to bring much wider regenerative benefits to the city: ƒ The potential to open up the riverside to develop the city centre as a welcoming place to both

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 128 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc live, work and visit. ƒ The site currently detracts from the city having a strong and welcoming core. ƒ Makes use of an existing brown field site likely to be transformed into a landmark development. ƒ Opportunity to complement adjacent development sites as a champion for sustainable construction. ƒ Unique opportunity to connect the historic core of the city with the communities of Fletton, Woodston and Stanground.

For reference section 6 of this document discusses development needs in Peterborough and the importance of city centre regeneration within this context.

Site to be progressed for development?

The regeneration potential of this brownfield site, on its own, is significant for the long term sustainability of the city centre as well as the wider Peterborough area. The complete South Bank site would include a range of uses that would significantly strengthen Peterborough’s core, creating a welcoming river facing area. The opportunity to link the eco-developments on the Carbon Challenge site to a sustainable construction school and eco-innovation centre at Fletton Quays creates a strong eco-hub that will broaden Peterborough’s offering and national recognition, and move the City strongly towards its goal of being Environment Capital.

Development of this site would provide a much stronger connection between the historic core of the city centre and the communities of Fletton, Woodston and Stanground. The South Bank’s accessibility and new public realm will encourage greater numbers of people to travel across the City Centre by walking, cycling or public transport to enjoy the new facilities and services provided thus increasing economic vibrancy across the remainder of the City Centre.

The updated EA Flood Zones show that 84% of the site is within Flood Zone 1. As more detailed masterplanning is undertaken for this site, it is important that the location of uses within the site is carefully considered with the aim of siting the most vulnerable uses in the areas of lowest risk. Low vulnerability and water compatible uses such as green infrastructure and amenity open space can also be maximised in the highest risk and medium risk parts of the site. Previous designs for the Fletton Quays have also limited residential to upper floors only. Taking a precautionary approach for this site will also enable any additional future flood risk due to climate change to be managed.

On the basis of this information it is recommended that this site is progressed to the next stage of detailed masterplanning and is suitable for development subject to the site undertaking and successfully passing the Exception Test.

Exception Test Candidate Y

Table 16-4 Fletton Quays

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 129 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 16.4.3 North Embankment

City Centre

Existing context:

The North Embankment is an under utilised brownfield site, which forms part of the city centre Embankment leisure area. The site contains leisure facilities in need of modernisation, the derelict Wirrina building and 3 surface car parks. Immediately adjacent is both a Lido and underused city park which all future development should integrate well with. Underutilisation of this space has been consolidated due to: the expanse of surface car parking; mid-20th century buildings which are poorly considered and do not address the neighbouring open space; and the fact that the Embankment as a whole is poorly integrated with the city centre.

Location: (see adjacent image)

The site is located to the north of the River Nene and is part of the wider leisure area called the Embankment. The open green space creates the boundary to the south of the site, and Bishop’s Road, that to the north. To the west is the Lido, and to the east, the Frank Perkins Parkway.

Site Capacity: 13.1 hectares

Flood Zone 1 13.1 ha (100 %)

Flood Zone 2 0.0 ha (0.0 %)

Flood Zone 3a 0.0 ha (0.0 %)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0 %)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 130 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Type:

Regeneration of this site will build on the site’s existing role as provider of leisure facilities. Improvements in the facilities and the public realm are proposed to create a fit-for-purpose entertainment, sport and leisure area which appeals to a wide variety of user, benefits Peterborough as a whole and provides an attraction for the wider sub-region The development will over look the open space and encourage through movement and greater emphasis on the park edge. Proposals for the site also includes a new 2-form school and some residential.

Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The proposed uses will be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability (PPS25) Proposed location within flood zones

Non-residential health centre, More vulnerable 1 primary school, residential

Leisure (e.g. swimming pool, gym, Less vulnerable arena), public open space and 1 green infrastructure

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

Are there any alternative sites available? N This site has the ability to provide wide regenerative benefits to the city and the sub-region and being 100% located within Flood Zone 1 development is appropriate in this location.

Site to be progressed for development?

The status of the site as fully within Flood Zone 1 makes this an appropriate site to promote for Y development of predominantly leisure and educational uses with some residential. The proposed uses and their location here would complement the City’s housing and employment growth.

Exception Test Candidate N

Table 16-5 North Embankment

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 131 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 16.4.4 Courts, Police Station & Riverside Car Park

City Centre

Existing context:

This site contains Peterborough’s Crown and Magistrates courts, the police station and the Riverside surface car park near the Key Theatre. It also contains a road layout known as the Rivergate Gyratory which directs traffic one way around a loop. The gyratory layout currently traps much land and realignment of this road system could therefore see this land released for development. The area might be brought forward in two or three different phases; the police station building; relocation of the law courts; realignment of the road and development of the land released.

Location (see adjacent image):

The site is bounded by Lower Bridge Street to the west, the Lido and the Embankment to the east, the junction between Bourges Boulevard and Bishop’s Road to the north and the River Nene to the south.

Site Capacity: 3.4 hectares

Flood Zone 1 3.1 ha (90.2 %)

Flood Zone 2 0.3 ha (8.5 %)

Flood Zone 3a 0.04 ha (1.3 %)

Flood Zone 3b 0.0 ha (0.0 %)

Development Type:

A mixed use development is proposed to incorporate a range of uses from central university buildings, university accommodation, private residential dwellings, a hotel, retail, restaurants and cultural facilities. Less detail is available about plans for this development as the site is likely to come forward on a longer time scale than other city centre sites.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 132 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The proposed uses will be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability Proposed location (PPS25) within flood zones

University buildings, university More vulnerable 1 accommodation, hotel, residential

Retail, restaurants, cultural Less vulnerable 1*,2 facilities

Riverside public realm, green Water compatible 1,2,3a infrastructure**

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for this use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3. This will help to manage additional future flood risk due to climate change impacts.

90% of this site falls within Flood Zone 1. It is important that the university buildings, accommodation, hotel and any dwellings are located within this Zone 1 land, the area of lowest risk. These land uses classify as ‘more vulnerable’ according to PPS25 and are the most vulnerable of the proposed uses for this site. The outcome of this Sequential Test is therefore based on the assumption that development will follow a sequential approach. Should this not prove to be the case when the final master plan and planning applications are submitted, the results below will no longer be valid and the sequential test will need to be repeated. If the Exception Test is then required for the site, it will need to be passed before development can proceed.

Are there any alternative sites available?

Regeneration of the Courts, Police Station and Riverside car park site has the ability to provide wide regenerative benefits to the city and the sub-region. It is the redesign and redevelopment of this brownfield site alone which provides Peterborough with unique opportunities to: N ƒ Reduce barriers caused by the dominance of roads in the city centre, by removing a physically dominant one-way road system. ƒ Simplify the road network through the city centre, easing wayfinding. ƒ Unlock new development land

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 133 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Better connect the different areas of the city centre, in particular between the Embankment and the historic core and Rivergate centre ƒ Improve the river frontage of this site to assist with promotion of the Nene through Peterborough ƒ Create a base for the future Peterborough University. Its central location makes it suited to be the heart of the higher education institution incorporating uses such as the student union. It is deemed therefore that no alternative sites exist which could achieve the same benefits.

Site to be progressed for development?

The site’s central location and its potential, through redevelopment, to reduce barriers in the city centre provide an unrivalled opportunity to create a more joined-up and vibrant city centre in Peterborough. Opportunities may exist for enhancing existing floodplain storage and flood flow routes by a combination of ground profiling and green infrastructure integration within public open space. Detailed site masterplanning would be required, but with 90% of the site being in Flood Zone 1, Y the ability to locate all of the ‘more vulnerable’ and potentially all of the ‘less vulnerable’ uses in this zone makes this an appropriate site for these development uses.

It is therefore recommended that this site is progressed on the basis that the more vulnerable uses are located within the lower risk flood zones.

Exception Test Candidate N

Table 16-6 Courts and Police Station site

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 134 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 16.4.5 Railworld development site

City Centre

Existing context:

The site is currently owned by Railworld. The site includes a mixture of unallocated land, existing uses such as a Wildlife Demonstration Garden, and the Railworld Visitor Centre, exhibition area and car parking. The site also includes a portion of semi- permeable and cut grass surfacing which is largely undeveloped.

Location (see adjacent image):

The River Nene splits the site into two, with both the northern and southern parts bordering the river. The Peterborough – Ely – Cambridge railway line runs down the eastern boundary of the site. Cubitt Way lies to the south and River Lane to the north.

Site Capacity: 6.0 hectares

Flood Zone 1 2.7 ha (45.3%)

Flood Zone 2 2.4 ha (39.9%)

Flood Zone 3a 0.3 ha (5.5%)

Flood Zone 3b 0.6 ha (9.3%)

Development Type:

The site as a whole is proposed by the owners to include: approximately 400 dwellings and associated car parking:, public open space; enhanced access via River Lane; significant expansion and enhancement of the existing Railworld Centre into a 5,000 square metre exhibition centre with associated car parking; and access via Cubitt Way.

Development Layout according to Masterplan

As described in section 10.3.5 within the Railworld site, allocation of the proposed uses has been influenced by the constraints and opportunities associated with the different areas of the site. These different areas are shown in the image below:

The non-flood risk related factors that have affected this site are:

Area A is the largest area, not significantly influenced by the railway line, and in that sense the most suitable for locating a significant housing area.

Area B is a wildlife garden created by volunteer support and site owners do not want to change the use here and lose the goodwill invested into the creation of the wildlife site.

Area C, where the current visitors centre is located, is the only part of the site along the Nene Valley railway line, a key element for locating the new transport exhibition centre. The engines for the Nene Valley railway are located here at the start of the line. The new exhibition centre would be located primarily in C2

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 135 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc with some elements, such as outdoor exhibits in C1.

Area D is likely to contain surface parking for the new centre.

The flood zones associated with each area of the site are shown in the table below:

Flood Zones (ha of site area) Flood Zones (% of site area) Site Parcel 1 2 3a 3b 1 2 3a 3b A (2.46 ha) 1.83 0.38 0.06 0.19 74.5 15.3 2.3 7.9 B (0.98 ha) 0.70 0.11 0.06 0.10 72.2 11. 5.7 10.5 C1 (0.87 ha) 0.00 0.38 0.22 0.26 0.05 43.9 25.7 30.3 C2 (0.77 ha) 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 D (0.95 ha) 0.19 0.76 0.00 0.00 20.4% 79.6 0.0 0.0

.

Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The proposed uses will be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for illustrative purposes for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 136 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability Proposed location within (PPS25) flood zones

Area A - Residential and More vulnerable 1*,2 associated parking

Area C, predominantly C2 - Less vulnerable 2*,3a Visitor centre/exhibition space

Area D - Open space, green Water compatible 1, 2* infrastructure**, parking for exhibition centre

Development is appropriate within this zone

Development requires the exception test

Development should not be permitted

* Predominant flood zone for the use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

74.5% of area A falls within Flood Zone 1 and 15% within Zone 2. It is important that any future residential development is located within these areas of lower risk since residential is classed as ‘more vulnerable’ by PPS25. It would not be appropriate for residential development to be built in Flood Zone 3b and if it is proposed in 3a the site would need to pass an Exception Test.

.

Are there any alternative sites available?

ƒ The masterplan for this site has been discussed with PCC over an extensive period. ƒ This is a city centre regeneration site whose improvement would benefit the city centre’s tourist offering, choice of residential properties and local economy. N ƒ The proposed area for housing does have other constraints along with flood risk, as access to the site would need to be significantly improved for housing to be developed. ƒ There are no other locations within Peterborough city centre which would meet the criteria for the exhibition centre, namely the requirement for an integral railway location, as the exhibition centre will be used for displaying railway engines. The site is well located to provide a city centre tourist destination.

.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 137 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site to be progressed for development?

This site does have the potential to positively impact on Peterborough city centre through regeneration benefits. Revision of flood mapping based on enhanced modelling and LiDAR data has resulted in a greater proportion of the area proposed for residential being in the lowest Flood Risk Zone - Flood Zone 1. The importance of applying a sequential approach to development within the site cannot be underestimated here and future residential development should be located away from areas at risk. With residential development only being located in Flood Zones 1 and 2 of this site the proposal would be appropriate under PPS25.

However, the site must not increase flood risk and appropriate flood risk management must be put in place. Even with application of a sequential approach it cannot not be ignored that a percentage of Area A and of Area C is in Flood Zone 3b, which is the functional floodplain and only suitable for water compatible uses. Future risk due to climate change in this currently undefended floodplain must be addressed by any development. The Environment Agency ASTSWF data also shows that this site has experienced surface water flooding in the past. Further investigation should therefore be undertaken (as part of a site specific FRA or Peterborough SWMP) to determine the level of risk to this site with regards to surface water flooding.

It is recommended that more detailed work is undertaken through a site specific flood risk assessment (FRA) to show how risk can be minimised for residents and users of the site. More detailed work is also required to fully assess the deliverability of the site as a whole, looking at accessibility constraints as well as flood risk.

Exception Test candidate

If a sequential approach to development is taken as shown above, then an exception test is not N required for this site,

Table 16-7 Railworld 16.4.6 Fengate 2

City Centre

Existing context:

This is a former landfill site fronting the River Nene. Part of the site is now used as a gravelled surface car park and the rest is laid to grass. It is currently not known whether this site meets the PPS3 definition of “previously developed land” and investigation into the landfill site’s history would need to be carried out to confirm this.

Location (see adjacent image):

The site is bounded by the Frank Perkins Parkway, the River Nene and the Fengate 1 housing development site.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 138 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site Capacity: 11.2 hectares

Flood Zone 1 10.5 ha (93.8 %)

Flood Zone 2 0.19 ha (1.7 %)

Flood Zone 3a 0.5 ha (4.5 %)

Flood Zone 3b 0 ha (0.0 %)

Development Type:

Residential development has been proposed for this site as part of the Defra funded LifE project (Long- term Initiatives for Flood-risk Environments). The LifE project is one of six projects funded by Defra’s Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management - Innovation Fund, and is part of Defra’s Making Space for Water Programme (MSW). The LifE project addresses the need for new homes, increased risk of flooding and a heightened environmental standard, by integrating three approaches: Living with Water; Making Space for Water; and Zero Carbon. Further information about these approaches and the LifE project as a whole is available at www.lifeproject.info.

Development Appropriateness and Flood Vulnerability: - Sequential Approach to Development within the Site:

The proposed uses will be identified through detailed masterplanning and feasibility testing. At this stage however, potential land-uses have been identified for consideration of their appropriateness in the context of PPS25. The land uses are examined with regards to their location within the site.

Potential Identified Uses Vulnerability Proposed location (PPS25) within flood zones

Life Plus Scheme Residential More vulnerable 1

Public Realm and river frontage, Water compatible 2 , 3a green infrastructure**

Development is appropriate within this zone Development requires the exception test Development should not be permitted

* Predominant Flood Zone for this use

** Opportunities for green infrastructure and amenity open space should be maximised within the site, using a sequential approach to managing flood risk and noting that some types of SUDS are not appropriate within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

94% of the site is in Flood Zone 1. It is important that a sequential approach is used within the site to locate the ‘more vulnerable’ residential uses within Flood Zone 1.

Are there any alternative sites available? N ƒ The location of this site means that any future development here will directly impact the city centre’s economy, transport network and approach to the River Nene, and thus

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 139 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Peterborough’s regeneration aims for the City Centre. This was the reason that the IGS proposed that the site be included within the Local Development Framework City Centre boundary. ƒ The site can combine both the opportunity for a significant allocation of housing in conjunction with integrated flood risk management as part of the DEFRA LifE scheme to maximise the regenerative potential of the city centre. ƒ Regeneration of the Fengate II site in terms of a better range of uses, enhanced linkages and an improved aesthetic environment is needed to ensure that this site enhances the rest of the city centre rather than detracting from it. ƒ There are no alternative sites within the City Centre which could deliver housing development of this scale along with an improved river frontage and an increased patronage to the Embankment.

Site to be progressed?

Due to the potential for all of the site’s residential development to be located within this predominantly Flood Zone 1 site, it is recommended that the site is progressed. Noting the site’s location next to the river, the opportunity to progress this site as one of the three LifE project case studies creates the perfect opportunity to investigate and develop a strong local practice of integrating water and flood mitigation measures seamlessly into the site’s design considering potential future climate change impacts. The site also provides a potential opportunity to Y incorporate some additional or compensatory flood storage enhancements along the river frontage to provide wider city centre flood risk reduction benefits.

Given that 94% of the site is within Flood Zone 1, the recommendation is that this site is progressed using learning from the LifE project, using a sequential approach in detailed masterplanning.

Exception Test Candidate N

Table 16-8 Fengate 2

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 140 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 17 Exception Test Process 17.1 Introduction to the Exception Test

The Exception Test provides a method of managing flood risk for developments of certain flood risk vulnerability while still allowing necessary development to occur.

Table 17-1 has been taken from PPS25 and highlights the instances where the exception test should be applied. The table also highlights where development in some instances is incompatible (marked with a ‘8’); this is where the proposal is considered too vulnerable to be located within the specified zone, irrespective of other perceived site benefits.

Flood Risk Essential Water Highly More Less Vulnerability Infrastructure Compatible Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable Classification

Zone 1 99999

Exception Test Zone 2 99 99 required

Exception Test Exception Test Zone 3a 98 9 required required

Exception Test Zone 3b 9888 required

Table 17-1 Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone ‘Compatibility’ (PPS 25, Table D.3) The Exception Test, as defined in PPS25, comprises three parts, all of which must be passed:

Part a); To demonstrate that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk.

Part b); The development must be on developable previously developed land. If this is not the case it must be demonstrated that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable previously developed land

Part c); A site specific FRA must be prepared to demonstrate that the development will be safe, will not increase flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will contribute to an overall reduction in flood risk.

These component parts provide the framework for the assessment of each Strategic Site requiring an Exception Test. For Part a), consideration of the wider sustainability issues draws on the criteria for assessing the effects of PCC’s Development Plan Documents (defined in the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report). This document provides the most localised criteria for considering wider sustainability issues within Peterborough and a useful template for considering each Strategic Site within ‘Part a’ of the Exception Test. Table 17-2 details the Sustainability Criteria to be used:

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 141 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Sustainability Criteria 1. Create healthy lifestyles and environments

2. Reduce health inequalities

3. Help make suitable housing available and affordable for everyone

4. Give Everyone Access to learning, training, skills and knowledge

5. Help everyone access basic services and facilities locally, easily, safely and affordably

6. Reduce crime and fear of crime

7. Promote a more vibrant Peterborough City

8. Support rural communities and rural practices to make a vibrant rural economy

9. Give everyone in Peterborough access to satisfying work opportunities

10. Reduce poverty and income inequality to enable everyone to afford a comfortable standard of living

11. Diversify the economy and increase economic vitality

12. Diversify the economy and increase economic vitality to aid regeneration (including reducing vulnerability and harnessing opportunities arising from the global economy and climate change).

13. Reduce the need/desire to travel

14. Promote alternatives to road and air based travel

15. Protect and enhance biodiversity (taking account of climate change)

16. Protect and enhance landscape and townscape character, retaining local distinctiveness and historical and cultural assets.

17. Reducing vulnerability to flooding, including sea level rise

18. Minimise pollution of natural resources

19. Minimise pollution that causes disturbance

20. Promote the conservation and wise use of productive land

21. Minimise non-renewable energy consumption and ‘greenhouse’ emissions

22. Keep water consumption within local carrying capacity limits and protect water resources

23. Minimise consumption of non-renewable natural resources

24. Help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy

Table 17-2 Sustainability Criteria Table 17-3 details the scoring system which will be used to assess the impact of the potential Strategic Site considered to require the Exception Test against each appropriate Sustainability Criteria.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 142 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Score Performance Category ++ Significant positive effects

+ Minor positive effects

0 Neutral (no effects)

- Minor negative effects

-- Significant negative effects

? Uncertain (insufficient information at this stage)

/ Mixed effects (both positive and negative)

Table 17-3 Sustainability Scoring System (adapted from the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report22)

Application of the Sequential Test in section 16 has highlighted that Fletton Quays requires the Exception Test to be undertaken. This site has been recommended for the Exception Test because it is located within a flood risk area, but is considered to have the potential to positively contribute to the sustainability objectives for Peterborough and its role as a sub regional centre. The City Council are promoting this site as its “developer”. 17.2 Exception Test for South Bank: Fletton Quays 17.2.1 Part (a)

Demonstrate that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk

Sustainability Criteria Score Justification

The eco-quarter and the school of sustainable construction will promote learning and application of sustainable design and construction, which is about living in balance with our environments. Create healthy lifestyles + The proximity of this development to the rest of the city centre and environments should encourage residents and users to travel to and from this area by walking and cycling, both contributing to healthy lifestyles and reducing the local traffic congestion.

This development is not considered to have any impacts relevant to Reduce health inequalities 0 this criterion,

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 143 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc This site will include a variety of housing types and tenures and Help make suitable housing contributes to housing numbers and therefore housing availability in available and affordable for + Peterborough. An appropriate share of the site will comprise everyone affordable housing.

The site will include one of the facilities of the new University, bringing the opportunity to study a wide range of higher education Give everyone access to courses in Peterborough. The Global Institute of Sustainable learning, training, skills and ++ Construction at Fletton Quays will allow people from Peterborough knowledge and beyond to study sustainable construction located within the eco-quarter of the aspiring Environment Capital of the UK.

Help everyone access The offices, retail and restaurants in the development will allow basic services and facilities local people to access these services closer to home. Its location + locally, easily, safely and within the city centre will enable residents to access health, affordably education and social services within close proximity.

Proposals focus on revitalising the river front, including residential, will help to significantly overcome local perceptions of crime and Reduce crime and fear of ++ provides opportunities for passive surveillance and 24/7 activity. crime The mix of uses will promote education, leisure and employment opportunities for the city as a whole.

A significant boost to the wider city in terms of employment, education and leisure opportunities. An anticipated increase in the daytime population along with the residential element of the scheme Promote a more vibrant will maintain a sense of vibrancy and community during the evening ++ Peterborough City and weekends. This will increase the opportunity to enhance the evening economy of the City. The proposals complement and enhance Peterborough as a major sub regional centre.

Support rural communities This development is not considered to have any impact relevant to and rural practices to make 0 this criterion a vibrant rural economy

Fletton Quays will include live-work units for people wanting flexibility in their employment and looking to work from home. Give everyone in The purpose built Eco-Innovation Centre (phase 2) will provide a Peterborough access to nurturing environment for start-up environmental businesses, ++ satisfying work through shared facilities and strong links with neighbouring opportunities companies. The leisure, restaurant and retail offering that the site will deliver will provide additional work opportunities. This development therefore provides a variety of work opportunities.

Reduce poverty and The site will include a suitable number of affordable housing and income inequality to enable anticipated employment opportunities (at present 30%). In addition, everyone to afford a + the potential to increase the number of people walking and cycling comfortable standard of can positively affect the level of disposable income. living

The Eco-Innovation Centre phase 2 proposals will provide a Diversify the economy and nurturing environment for start-up environmental businesses, and ++ increase economic vitality together with the Global Institute of Sustainability (the University faculty), and increase the contribution of the environment sector to

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 144 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc the local economy fitting the Environment Plus economic growth agenda for Peterborough. The riverside environment will clearly promote boutique style retail and additional bars and restaurants to further diversify the existing retail and dining offering of the city centre.

Regeneration of Fletton Quays is part of the regeneration plans for Diversify the economy and the city centre, aimed at boosting the local economy and enabling increase economic vitality Peterborough to maintain its role as a major sub regional centre. to aid regeneration The Eco-Innovation Centre phase 2 proposals will provide a (including reducing nurturing environment for start-up environmental businesses, vulnerability and ++ addressing the need to learn more about and develop a stronger harnessing opportunities understanding of climate change mitigation and adaption, and arising from the global increase the contribution of the environment sector to the local economy and climate economy. The majority of the site is underutilised and in need of change). regeneration.

The city centre location will mean that the local residents will not need to travel by unsustainable means to access the city centre services. This site’s location and ease of accessibility means minimal travel distance for people living, working and studying at Fletton Quays, as well as for residents in Fletton, Woodston, Reduce the need/desire to + Stanground who will be able to make use of leisure, education and travel employment on this site. However, as the regeneration of Fletton Quays will directly contribute to Peterborough City Centre’s role as a sub regional centre now and in the future it may generate travel from outside the city to visit the site.

New public realm as part of this site and the historic core is already underway to ensure routes through the city centre are clear and Promote alternatives to easy to use, significantly reducing the need to travel by means ++ road and air based travel other than walking and cycling. New pedestrian and cycle bridges over the railway line and river would further enhance alternative modes of travel.

Protect and enhance The development will seek to protect and enhance the biodiversity biodiversity (taking account ? of this site as part of the built form and open space strategy. of climate change)

The site includes an old Mill, which is a ‘Building of Local Importance’, and 2 listed rail sheds. It is planned that future Protect and enhance development will keep these buildings, restoring, maintaining and landscape and townscape using them for appropriate purposes to create a vastly improved character, retaining local environment which makes the most of its local historical assets. ++ distinctiveness and The River Nene is one of Peterborough’s greatest assets, but it historical and cultural currently fails to connect with the built environment. This assets. development will bring the river strongly back into the forefront through strong design, welcoming public realm and integrated water management.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 145 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc The proposal will increase the amount of development within Flood Zone 2 and 3a. However the proposal does not include any ‘highly Reducing vulnerability to vulnerable’ uses within such areas. A flood mitigation programme flooding, including sea level -- will be fully incorporated, and ‘more vulnerable’ uses will avoid rise these zones where possible and not be constructed at ground floor/basement levels.

Minimise pollution of Through appropriate design and construction techniques, the 0 natural resources development will have no adverse affect on natural resources.

The careful design and choice of construction techniques and construction planning will minimise the potential for local disturbance. The Local Authority will engage with the developer Minimise pollution that + and contractors as early as possible to address any potential causes disturbance disturbances. Once operational, the proposal has the potential to improve local air quality through reduction in the need for unsustainable transport modes.

Promote the conservation Fletton Quays is a brownfield site, whose preparation for and wise use of productive ++ development will improve the status of the land and prevent the land need to build on greenfield land.

Minimise non-renewable The South Bank as a whole has been identified as a key energy energy consumption and ++ action zone for Peterborough where renewable energy sources and ‘greenhouse’ emissions high standards of energy efficiency should be prevalent.

The South Bank has been identified to become an eco-quarter with Keep water consumption high standards in environmental sustainability inherent to maintain within local carrying the standards set by the adjacent Carbon Challenge site. The + capacity limits and protect purpose built sustainable construction University Faculty and Eco water resources Innovation Centre are planned to be built to a minimum of BREEAM Excellent, incorporating the respective water targets.

The site will collectively minimise the consumption of non- renewable resources, both in the design and operation of the Minimise consumption of strategic site. This will be through the full integration of the WRAP non-renewable natural ++ reducing waste to landfill project in the site’s construction and the resources high environmental design specifications (including BREEAM excellent as a minimum for the University Faculty and the Eco Innovation Centre) .

Help deliver sustainable The Fletton Quays development will be part of a WRAP reducing development through ++ waste to landfill project and hence waste produced from the site will driving waste management be reused or recycled, reducing the reliance on landfill. up the waste hierarchy

Table 17-4 Fletton Quays Exception Test Part a Summary Consideration of the Fletton Quays Strategic Site against the defined sustainability criteria has highlighted a range of likely effects. These are primarily positive, including the centrality of the site, the proximity of the River Nene, its potential to connect with Peterborough’s historic core and an opportunity to integrate with local walking and cycle routes. The proposal itself has significant potential to add to the education, employment and leisure provision within the city with a particular emphasis on sustainability. It is the prevalence of a relatively small area of high Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 146 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc probability flood zone which raises the negative impact of this strategic site. However, with the emphasis placed on a sequential approach to site layout, good water management, flood mitigation measures, the incorporation of SUDS and placing the least vulnerable land uses at ground levels, the strength of the site’s assets are considered to outweigh the identified flood risk. 17.2.2 Part b)

Is the development on developable previously-developed land?

Yes the site is on developable previously developed land. The land along the south bank of the river is regarded as a brownfield site, occupied by two large retail warehouses, offices, old railway sheds and a Mill. 17.2.3 Part (c)

Demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

There are a range of factors to be considered when determining whether or not a development is ‘safe’; these elements are considered in the subsequent sections.

Proposed Development The current preliminary masterplan prepared for South Bank Developments (Site Area 1 - Fletton Quays; Site Area 2 - Carbon Challenge; Site Area 3- London Road Allotments) is illustrated on Figure 17-1. It should be noted however that further changes to this masterplan are recommended below to take into account the revised 2009 Flood Zone maps and the Level 2 SFRA hazard mapping and recommendations.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 147 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 17-1 South Bank Developments Illustrative Masterplan

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 148 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Vulnerability Classification The proposed mix of development at Fletton Quay is predominantly classified as ‘more vulnerable’ as it comprises residential dwellings and educational establishments. There may be an element of ‘less vulnerable’ in terms of cultural, leisure and retail along the river frontage.

Flood Hazard Figures 17-2 and 17-3 show the spatial distribution of overtopping flood hazard for the 100-Year and 1000-Year respectively, inclusive of climate change impacts, across the South Bank sites - Fletton Quays (Site 1) and Carbon Challenge Site (Site 2).

These figures also show the EA Flood Zones and the initial masterplan produced prior to the preparation of the Level 2 SFRA. Currently, there is no breach hazard risk to the South Bank sites as they are not protected by any raised flood defences. It is also worth noting that the breach modelling that was carried out, illustrated that the impacts did not extend to the city centre.

Hazard rating is based on the DEFRA guidance30,31 discussed previously and is denoted:

Caution

Danger for Some

Danger for Most

Danger for All

Flood Zone 2

Flood Zone 3

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 149 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 17-2 100-Year (climate change) Overtopping Hazard Rating

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 150 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 17-3 1000-Year (climate change) Overtopping Hazard Rating

During the 100-year (climate change) event, the areas of highest hazard are located at the extreme east and west of the site in small areas where the initial masteplan has proposed residential and educational development respectively. During the 1000-year (climate change) event, significant flooding is predicted across the entire site resulting in an increase in hazard although the eastern half and the river frontage will have the greatest flood risk. Flood extents are not increased as a result of any of the breach scenarios modelled through the existing defences further to the east of this site as part of the Level 2 SFRA. This spatial hazard mapping can and should be used to inform the detailed development layout and determine safe access and egress routes, in conjunction with PCC emergency planners and the EA, as the site design progresses further.

Proposed Development Layout Alterations Through the detailed design process, hazard information should be used to configure the site layout to locate development in areas of lowest hazard. In the case of Fletton Quays, it is suggested that the proposed residential development adjacent to the river at the eastern end of the site is replaced with a flood compensation area incorporating environmental enhancements. The western end of the site adjacent to river which has high hazard risk may also be better reconfigured so that this area contains a collection of attractive communal open space features, courtyards and less vulnerability uses actively promoting riverside and city centre activities. In addition, a low-level well designed riverside walk should be integrated to the river frontage promoting the concept of “Making Space for Water”, which can then provide additional conveyance and flood storage during times of extreme events to minimise risk to the proposed development and elsewhere. A low level temporary demountable flood defences can also be

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 151 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc integrated to the landward side of this riverside walk, if this is deemed appropriate after further consultation with the EA and PCC, to provide extra protection to the Southbank development sites during extreme events whilst accommodating future climate change impacts. Due to the development density and distribution of flood hazard it is not considered that there are any further appropriate changes to the layout other than making the buildings more flood resilient as highlighted below.

There are no single storey buildings proposed in line with guidance in the PPS25 practice guide7; this ensures that site users and residents have access to flood free refuges. In addition, there should be no residential accommodation at the ground level unless the hazard rating is “caution” for 1000-Year (climate change). In all other areas the residential accommodation should be provided on upper floors, to sit above the ground floor shops, offices and under-croft car parks.

Finished floor levels of the buildings should be set at least 600mm above the 100-Year (climate change) level throughout the development where possible but in particular along the river frontage and where any residential accommodation is proposed. Under-croft car parks should be incorporated within innovative and elevated flood resilient building design to minimise the impact on proposed development as well as existing flood flow routes and flood storage to avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. Buildings should be also designed to withstand the force of floodwater, and where possible should incorporate flood resilience measures to facilitate rapid return to use post flooding.

Safe Access and Egress The main entrance to the site is located at the western boundary just outside on the edge of an area defined as low hazard during the 1000-Year (climate change) event where East Station Road meets London Road that is also elevated above the flood risk areas as highlighted below. The site access road leading to the main entrance is also predominantly located in an area of low hazard for the same event. Pathways through the development lead away from the river towards the access road thus ensuring that site users are not directed towards areas of higher risk during an extreme event of this magnitude (1000-Year with Climate Change).

On leaving the site to the west, the existing London Road is not located in an area of flood risk and leads south away from the river enabling both the egress of site occupants and access for the emergency services if required.

It should be ensured that pedestrian access is maintained through flood risk free and/ or low hazard areas at the eastern end of the site. It is also recommended that elevated high level walkways connected directly to London Road are maintained from the proposed buildings and through university plaza area at the western end of the site. The proposed landmark footbridge across the River Nene should continue above the ground level through the Southbank development and above the Peterborough - Cambridge railway line so that it can also link with the proposed high level walkway from London Road to the south of the railway line through the Carbon Challenge Site. It should be noted that main site access from London Road to Carbon Challenge site is also located at high ground some distance away from the identified flood hazard risk areas. All elevated walkways should be designed so that they do not obstruct flood flow routes during extreme events.

It is recommended that appropriate signing is incorporated into the development indicating the safe and most direct routes from the site.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 152 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Flood Warning and Evacuation Plans The catchment response of the Upper Nene and Middle Nene reaches is also very slow due to the largely rural nature of the catchment and the vast natural storage available in the Middle Nene reach. This combined with regulated flow through the operation of Northampton Washlands means that it may take up to 5 days for a flood peak to arrive at Peterborough during a catchment-wide major flood event. The South Bank development area is not at risk of flooding from breaching of existing flood defences.

Fletton Quays is located in the EA flood warning area, River Nene Wansford to Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice. Therefore it is expected that appropriate warnings of rising river levels would be received thus allowing users to leave the site in advance of a major flood event.

All residents and business users should be prompted to sign up to the EA’s Automated Flood Warning Service to enable preparation ahead of potential flood events.

PCC Emergency planning team should be consulted during the site design process to ensure that an appropriate emergency response can be maintained during extreme flood events. In addition, evacuation plans approved by the PCC emergency planning team should be incorporated within the Site Specific FRA.

Floodplain Compensation In order to ensure that proposed buildings are located above the 100-Year (climate change) flood level, plus a 600mm freeboard, an element of ground raising will be required. The main locations in which this is likely to be necessary is in the north-west and north centre of the site. This will consequently reduce the available floodplain storage and thus measures must be put in place to mitigate for this.

The EA guidance requires that any compensated floodplain storage must be provided on a “level for level” and “volume for volume” basis up to 100-Year (climate change) to maintain the natural flood mechanisms without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The estimated volume of potentially lost flood storage volume if the ground levels are raised across the site above the 100-year (climate change) level would be 1224 m3. However, this is an overestimation as a low-level riverside walk, undercroft car parks and public open space areas, which will not require such ground level raising, are proposed within the site, in addition to a proposed flood compensation area at the eastern end of the site. If the eastern end of the site is not developed at all then 842m3 of flood compensation will be required as a minimum.

Assuming 1224 m3 of flood storage land is removed then the same volume (level for level) will be required for flood compensation, just to create a situation where no flood storage is lost. However, an excellent opportunity exists here in developing plans for Fletton Quays, to ensure that the site has a high level of resilience to climate change and flood risk. If 12,682 m3 flood compensation land is created on a level for level basis, this would establish a floodplain compensation volume suitable for the 1000-year + climate change level. PPS25 encourages SFRAs to identify opportunities in which overall flood risk can be reduced and this is a notable opportunity as it would bring significant benefits to all riverside areas of Peterborough City Centre, reducing the overall flood risk along the banks.

Off-site strategic flood storage locations that can temporarily store flood water during large events have been identified within this Level 2 SFRA. The examples of such locations include:

ƒ The river frontage south of Fengate 2, on the north bank

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 153 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ The playing fields to the south of Thorpe Lea Road, west of the Railworld site and also the south-western part of the Railworld site, on the north bank ƒ South- Embankment area, on the north bank Given the importance to Peterborough of developing this key regeneration area, and ensuring that flood risk is reduced for the site and its surrounding area, it is recommended that land along the river is allocated through the Site Allocations DPD for the purpose of providing strategic off- site floodplain compensation. To use the example of the Thorpe Meadows playing fields, a site area of 4.0 ha, if lowered by a depth of 300mm, would provide 12,000 m3 of compensation land. Further more detailed LiDAR profiling on and off-site will be required through the Site Specific FRA to develope further details of the compensation scheme.

Further discussion about the potential use of the above locations as well as constraints is given in Part 5. 17.2.4 Summary of Final Exception Test Results

The Exception Test was applied to Fletton Quays, which is deemed to pass all three parts. The development at Fletton Quays is a keystone development for the regeneration and renewal of the City Centre and Peterborough as a whole. The development is on previously developed brownfield land and can be made safe through minor changes in layout, appropriate signing and participation in the EA flood warning scheme. This, in conjunction with wider off-site strategic flood storage opportunities, can bring about a reduction in flood risk to the Southbank development area and elsewhere in Peterborough and downstream locations. A site-specific FRA should be produced for Fletton Quays by building on the hazard mapping and specific and general recommendations given this Level 2 SFRA as part of a future planning application. A robust flood risk management strategy for Fletton Quays will also be required as part of the site’s master planning.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 154 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 18 Sequential Test Conclusions 18.1 Site Outcomes

The majority of sites that were located predominantly within Flood Zone 1 at the time of the IGS do still fall within Flood Zone 1. There have been some slight changes in the Flood Zones affecting Great Haddon and Stanground South but both sites are still considered to be predominantly within Flood Zone 1. While the EA Flood Zones illustrate that the Rivergate area is within Flood Zone 1, this site has been highlighted within the EA’s ASTSWF data, as having experienced surface water flooding in the past. There is not currently enough information available to determine whether the site remains at risk from flooding in the future. It is therefore recommended that further investigation into surface water flood risk at Rivergate is carried out as part of Peterborough’s future Surface Water Management Plan.

Listed below are the conclusions made from the SFRA Level 2 sequential tests of the potential strategic development sites not falling predominantly within Flood Zone 1.

Given the significant employment and regeneration benefits that these sites could bring to Peterborough, the following are recommended for development as key strategic sites:

ƒ South Bank Carbon Challenge ƒ North Embankment ƒ Police station, Courts & Riverside car park site ƒ Fengate 2 ƒ South Bank Fletton Quays – this is following a positive outcome to the Exception Test

While the following developments are recognised as sites that could bring significant benefits to Peterborough, their current flood risk status means that further work is needed before a decision can be taken regarding whether development should be recommended. The type of work recommended is dependent on the site, but for example includes demonstration of appropriate flood risk measures and minimised risk to site users, evidence of the site’s overall sustainability or further justification of the need for the site:

ƒ Redbrick Farm ƒ Regional Freight Interchange ƒ Railworld

It is worth noting here that the Exception Test (as carried out for Fletton Quays) is an appropriate method for demonstrating the sustainability of a site and showing that local flood risk will not be increased. While an Exception Test may not be required under PPS25 for these sites, developers promoting the 3 sites listed above may wish to follow the Exception Test method for their sites in order to enable clearer analysis of the site’s advantages and constraints.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 155 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 18.2 Growth Quantum

The final submission version of the Core Strategy includes the latest updates to Peterborough’s housing requirements, shown below in figure 18-1. The figure of 25,450 dwellings required between 2009 and 2026 includes dwellings (for example in Hampton, Paston Reserve and Stanground South) which already have outline or full planning permission or are currently under construction.

Figure 18-1 Core Strategy Submission Version - Overall Requirements for Residential Growth

Figure 18-2, below, shows how the dwellings are expected to be located across Peterborough. There is a notable decrease in the overall numbers proposed since the Core Strategy Preferred Options report, from 27,600 to 25,500. This change has come from:

ƒ Decreased number of dwellings in the urban area including district centres. ƒ Decreased number of residential units allocated to Great Haddon urban extension ƒ Decreased numbers in rural areas ƒ Increased city centre dwelling numbers (from 3900 to 4300)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 156 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Through the earlier sections of this report undertaking sequential tests for strategic development sites and summarising the IGS process, it has been shown that 4300 dwellings can be accommodated in the City Centre within either:

- Flood Zone 1 sites, or - Significant Flood Zone 1 areas of regeneration sites that also span other Flood Zones.

More vulnerable development, such as residential or education facilities, should always be located in low risk areas of the site. It is important that all development sites undertake a flood risk sequential approach to development and this has been made clear through the strategic sites’ sequential tests in section 16. Should future development applications not meet the condition imposed, then the sequential test result in this SFRA Level 2 will no longer be valid and the site will need to undertake a revised sequential test. Sites may then have to undergo and pass an Exception Test before development should proceed.

Figure 18-2 Core Strategy Submission Version - The Location of New Dwellings 2009 – 2026

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 157 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc (This page has been left blank intentionally)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 158 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc PART 5 WIDER FLOOD RISK AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 159 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 19 Wider Catchment and Key Risks to Peterborough 19.1 Catchment Context

Peterborough City and the surrounding area lie predominantly within the catchments of the River Nene and River Welland. A small area (1.3%) along the south eastern boundary is within the Bedford Ouse catchment. The River Nene and Welland within the study area are classed as EA ‘Main River’. Table 19-1 gives details of the key tributaries in the Nene and Welland Catchments and they are also shown in Figure D1 in Appendix D.

River Nene Tributaries (1) River Welland Tributaries (2)

Billing Brook Maxey Cut

Castor Splash Folley River(3)

Orton Dyke Car Dyke(3)

Fletton Spring Brook Drain(3)

Stanground Lode Werrington Brook(3)

Padholme Drain Paston Brook(3)

Thorpe Meadows Marholme Brook(3)

Mortons Leam

Table 19-1 Main rivers and tributaries within the study area (1 Some of the tributaries fall within the drainage catchments administered by North Level IDB and Middle Level Commissioners IDB. 2 Some of the tributaries fall within the drainage catchments administered by Welland and Deeping IDB and North Level IDB. 3 Part of the Peterborough Brooks Drain System.) The 1-in-100 year flow in the River Nene through Peterborough is approximately 150m³/s. The tidal limit is now the Dog in Doublet Sluice built in 1936, 9km east, downstream, of the Town Bridge. The Nene drains a natural catchment of 1798km² to its tidal limit33 and an additional 556km² downstream of this point giving a total catchment of 2267km² to the Wash. There is a gauging station on the Nene at Wansford, on the south western boundary of the study area. The maximum recorded flow in this location was 264.3m³/s during the 1997/1998 water year34.

The River Welland has a catchment of 1600km² and flows into the Wash at Fossdyke. The tidal limit is on the northern edge of Spalding approximately 30km downstream of the study area. The nearest gauging station to Peterborough is at Tallington, immediately north of the study area boundary; the highest recorded flow was 94.5m³/s during the 1997/1998 water year.

Peterborough is located downstream of the confluences of the Nene with the Willow Brook, Harpers Brook and River Ise. Peterborough is generally located in a sensitive location within the overall catchment with respect to climate change, urban growth and increasing tidal influence from the downstream areas; in particular, the accumulation of tributary flood flows along the River Nene combined with the impact of number of expanding upstream urban settlements such as Daventry, Northampton, Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough is a significant consideration.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 160 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Responsibilities Current responsibilities for flood risk management are split between a number of parties, creating a complex and unclear situation. This is highlighted in the Pitt Review35, and illustrated by Figure 19-1.

Figure 19-1 Flood Risk Management Responsibilities (Image reproduced from Pitt Review: Learning lessons from the 2007 Floods) Within Peterborough, the key parties involved in flood risk management are:

ƒ Environment Agency; ƒ Anglian Water; ƒ Peterborough City Council; ƒ Middle Level Commissioners (south east of Peterborough); ƒ Welland and Deepings IDB (north west of Peterborough); ƒ North Level IDB (east of Peterborough); and ƒ Drysides Internal Drainage Board. Figure D1 indicates IDB boundaries within PCC area. In addition, copies of plans, asset details, contact details and guidance related to dealing with the IDB systems can be found at their websites: ƒ Middle Level Commissioners - www.middlelevel.gov.uk; ƒ Welland and Deepings - www.wellandidb.org.uk; ƒ North Level - www.northlevelidb.org; ƒ Drysides and Whittlesey IDB - www.wcidb.org.uk;

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 161 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Flood Risk Management Measures The current flood risk management measures in Peterborough are shown in Figure D2 and they include:

ƒ Raised embankments and flood walls; ƒ Designated flood storage areas and washlands; ƒ Sluices; ƒ Inland drainage systems; and ƒ Pumping Stations. Peterborough also benefits from the operation of the Northampton Washlands reducing the flood risk from the upper and middle reaches of the River Nene.

As can be seen from Figure D2 in Appendix D, formal flood embankments are located on the River Welland, the River Nene downstream of Peterborough, and along the Car Dyke north east of the city. In addition, a number of road and rail embankments within Peterborough act as defacto defences affording a degree of protection to various parts of the city and further discussed in Section 24. The Nene Washes east of Peterborough and Crowland Washes to the north provide significant flood storage for the River Nene and River Welland respectively.

On the River Nene, the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice protects Peterborough from tidal inflows from the Wash. During high tide, flood water in the River Nene through the central part of Peterborough is diverted via Mortons Leam and Stanground Sluice into the Nene Washes where it is detained until the tide recedes, allowing its release into the tidal reach at Rings End Sluice. Operation of the Nene Washes leads to a reduction of approximately 10m³/s in the peak of 1-in-100 year flood for a critical catchment wide storm at Peterborough13. In addition, there are smaller flood storage areas on the Padholme Drain, Fletton Spring and Thorpe Meadows.

The key features in the River Welland catchment include:

ƒ Maxey Cut, an embanked flood relief channel; ƒ The Crowland Wash; and ƒ Peterborough Brooks System and the Peakirk pumping station at its downstream end – this system can experience long durations of high water levels within the watercourses, especially in downstream reaches, during the periods of high rainfall within the main urban area if combined with high water levels in the River Welland. The Level 1 SFRA summarises the existing flood risk management measures within Peterborough within both River Nene and River Welland catchments (including Peterborough Brooks system). The EA flood warning areas within Peterborough are further discussed in Section 24. 19.2 Key Risks

The key risks of flooding to Peterborough include:

ƒ Overflow of watercourses, flood defences, flood storage reservoirs/ washlands (e.g. Nene Washes, Cowbit Washes, Padholme FSR and Thorpe Hall FSR) and storm water balancing ponds (e.g. Hampton and Werrington);

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 162 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ Breaching of existing embanked/ raised flood defences and water retention features (e.g. Nene Washes, Cowbit Washes and Rutland Water); ƒ Mechanical, structural or operational failure of locks, sluices, gates and pumps; ƒ Blockages of culverts and bridge openings; and ƒ Localised surface water flooding from surcharged sewers, highway drains and overland flow. Peterborough Level 1 SFRA3 assessed the potential risks to the City at a high level from all forms of flooding sources. It provides details of historical flooding events; of the 26 incidents listed, nine can be directly attributed to watercourses. These are detailed in Table 19-2.

Location Source Date

Peterborough River Nene 1947

Woodcroft Castle Tributaries of the Brook Drain 1986

Local areas along Werrington Brook Werrington Brook 1986

Merlin Business Park Marholm Brook and tributary 1997

Thorpe Meadows River Nene 1998

Warley Road/Town Bridge River Nene 1998

Merlin Business Park Marholm Brook tributary 1998

Waterworks Lane, Glinton, Woodcroft Brook Drain and IDB Drains 1998

Stirling Way Industrial Estate Werrington Brook 1998

Table 19-2 Historic Watercourse Flooding (Source SFRA3) Several main river tributaries such as Thorpe Meadows, Brook Drain, Paston Brook and Stanground Lode are known to have capacity issues.

Much of the eastern part of the study area is located within Flood Zone 3a, and areas of the central River Nene corridor through Peterborough and the Nene Washes are classed as Flood Zone 3b. Figure D3 in Appendix D illustrates the extent of the Flood Zones.

Extensive areas of high risk Flood Zone 3a across the eastern part of the study area and further sea level rise due to climate change will primarily constrain new development opportunities predominantly within the urban parts to area where fluvial flood risk is low and the existing ground levels are relatively high. It should be noted however that these much of the higher flood risk areas are currently protected by existing main river flood defences on the River Nene to a high standard in excess of 200yr. The land drainage in these areas is also managed by the Internal Drainage Boards described before.

The Peterborough WCS Detailed Strategy report further details the historic, current and future risks associated with the sewerage network.

The River Nene CFMP also states that 293 properties were flooded in Peterborough in May 1986 due to surcharging sewers and pumping stations although the details of these locations are not given. Nevertheless, this highlights possible significant risk from such flooding sources. The increased risk due to climate change impacts further heightens the importance of flood risk management within the study area, both in defended and undefended parts. Intense and more

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 163 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc frequent rainfall patterns also heighten the surface water flooding risk within the central part of the City and other urban areas.

The village of Yaxley is located just outside the PCC boundary but drains into the Peterborough sewer catchment and several properties in this village have experienced sewer flooding. The measures and recommendations to deal with the future risks resulting from the planned growth proposals on the foul sewerage network and wastewater discharges have been fully described and presented in WCS Detailed Strategy report.

Critical drainage areas within the main urban area are identified through high level surface water modelling and consultations with the key stakeholders are presented in Figure E1 in Appendix E.

The key risks associated with the identified strategic sites (the main focus of this Level 2 SFRA) include:

ƒ Overtopping risk from the undefended section of the River Nene through the city centre;

ƒ Surface water flood risk from the sewerage system (mainly combined) and the highway drains.

ƒ Breach risk of the existing defences resulting in rapid inundation with high velocities and depths

Climate change together with additional paved areas and sewerage flows arising from the new development from the upstream settlements and the main urban area in Peterborough will increase the current level of risks. River Nene CFMP has indicated that the present day extreme flood levels are likely to increase by approximately 250mm in the future unless its recommended actions within the upstream catchment such as use of SUDS and flood storage creation are taken forward. These risks are also assessed in some detail as part of this SFRA and parallel WCS. They include guidance, policy objectives and strategy recommendations to address these future risks in a robust manner so that the development planned in Peterborough can progress as planned in a sustainable fashion.

20 Core Spatial Strategy and CCAAP Inputs 20.1 Overtopping and Breach Hazard Mapping

Appendix B of this report provides a range of maps to illustrate likely overtopping and breach flood risk to the identified potential strategic sites covered by this SFRA for the 100-year and 1000 year events from the River Nene and Stanground Lode. The potential strategic sites assessed are shown in Figure B1 of Appendix B. In addition, Figure B2 and B3 show the schematic of the ISIS TUFLOW model used and the locations of the breaches considered.

The overtopping hazard maps consider the current and future risks for both the 100-year and 1000-year events, and by fully taking into account the climate change allowances expected in PPS25. These maps show the risk associated with the proposed strategic sites including the

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 164 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Great Haddon urban extension from the River Nene and Stanground Lode. Breach hazard mapping shows the additional residual risk associated with the existing flood defences on the River Nene and Nene Washes, for the 100 year and 1000 year events. The mapping was undertaken only with climate change impacts on a worst case scenario as agreed with the Environment Agency. The breach risk is mainly associated with Redbrick Farm and the Regional Freight Interchange, and the low-lying fens.

There are no raised defences on the left bank of Car Dyke where the proposed Norwood development site is located and therefore there is no breach risk associated with this urban extension. The site is also located at the upstream reaches of this watercourse and therefore high velocity and depth causing significant hazard risk to Norwood from the Car Dyke is not envisaged if actual development is limited within Flood Zone 1 areas, reserving Flood Zone 2 and 3 for green infrastructure proposals. Therefore, detailed overtopping hazard modelling was not undertaken for the Car Dyke within the Level 2 SFRA.

Table 20-1 summarises the overtopping and breach hazard mapping available from the Level 2 SFRA in Appendix B that provides valuable detailed information for addressing the flood risk requirements of the emerging Core Strategy strategic sites.

Figure Ref. Events modelled Nature of flood risk

B4 to B11 100 yr and 1000 yr (present Overtopping day and climate change)

B12 100 yr (climate change) Breaching – Combined maximum extents from all northern breaches N1 to N14

B13 100 yr (climate change) Breaching – Combined maximum extents from all southern breaches S1 to S6

B14 and B15 100 yr (climate change) Breaching – Southern Breaches S1 and S2

B16 to B29 100 yr (climate change) Breaching – Northern Breaches N1 to N14

B30 and B31 1000 yr (climate change) Breaching – Southern Breaches S 1 and S2

B32 and B33 1000 yr (climate change) Breaching – Northern Breaches N1 and N2

Table 20-1 Level 2 SFRA Hazard Mapping presented in Appendix B

Appendix C includes a further set of overtopping hazard maps similar to Figure B4 to B11 but specifically focussing on the area covered by the City Centre Area Action Plan, so that the potential risks to the future sites can be clearly seen, and appropriate policies and recommendations can be made accordingly. These maps show the overtopping risks with and without climate impacts changes for both 100 year and 1000 year.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 165 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 20.2 Flood Risk Management Strategy - Policy Objectives and Further Studies

The Level 1 SFRA recommended a preparation of an integrated flood risk management strategy for Peterborough. The remaining sections provides useful guidance on setting out this flood risk management strategy including policy objectives and further studies required to inform the emerging Development Planning Documents and development masterplans. It should noted however that further information related to these aspects are already given in the River Nene CFMP and the Peterborough WCS Detailed Strategy that are about to be published. Therefore, the subsequent sections should be read in conjunction with the additional information supplied in CFMP and WCS. However, all relevant information relating to flood risk have been drawn into this Level 2 SFRA to ensure a coordinated and consistent advice can be provided.

The key topics that have been explored within this Level 2 SFRA to inform the emerging Peterborough Local Development Documents and development site proposals, in terms of developing an integrated flood risk management strategy are shown in Table 19-2 below.

Policy Topic Area Report Reference

Sequential approach to locating development Section 21

Flood risk management opportunities (including water Section 22 compatible uses alongside the key watercourses)

Surface water management and use of SUDS Section 23

Residual flood risk management Section 24

Maintenance and inspection regimes of the flood Section 25 management features

Developer Guidance on Site Specific Flood Risk Section 26 Assessments and Development Design

Windfall Sites Section 27 Table 20-2 Flood Risk Management Policy Topic areas to inform emerging Peterborough LDF

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 166 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 21 Policy Topic Area 1 - Sequential Approach to Locating Development 21.1 Allocation of Strategic Sites

Most of identified potential strategic sites except for Norwood are located within the River Nene catchment, within the Peterborough and Nene Washes Policy unit of the CFMP. This policy unit is classified is at high overall risk in the future when future climate change is taken into consideration. All policy units on the River Nene are shown in Figure D4 in Appendix D.

The measures proposed in the CFMP to address this risk in Peterborough including the following that are directly related to development planning should be taken forward by PCC and the EA:

ƒ Put in place policies within the Local Development Framework for no inappropriate development in the floodplain using methods in PPS25. Any new development should be located in the areas of lowest flood risk, targeted to previously developed land and must not increase risk to existing development. Developers should incorporate river naturalisation and environmental enhancement into new developments. ƒ Put in place policies within the Local Development Framework to link flood risk management planning with regeneration and redevelopment of commercial sites. The location, layout and design of commercial developments can help to reduce flood risk. PPS25 sets out a range of measures that can reduce the impacts of flood risk, such as making buildings resilient to flooding. The Level 2 SFRA recognises that the most effective form of flood risk management is through risk avoidance by applying Sequential Approach and Sequential Test according to flood risk management hierarchy presented in PPS25.

Assess Avoid Substitute Control Mitigate

Figure 21-1 PPS25 Flood Risk Management Hierarchy Flood information presented in this Level 2 SFRA, Detailed Strategy WCS and the EA Flood Zones should be used to allocate all new development in lowest risk areas as the first preference, whilst targeting to previously developed land. Within this process the additional risk arising from the future climate change and other residual risks should also be considered. If this is not entirely possible due to regeneration and wider sustainability needs following the application of Sequential Test and then Exception Test, such as for Fletton Quays, then such development should be designed to minimise the risk following the guidance presented in this report and PPS25. The role of green infrastructure and open space corridors should be considered as a flood risk management tool whilst increasing nature conservation and biodiversity enhancement into development proposals where possible.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 167 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Policy Recommendation 1

PCC should consider recommending that developers follow the process set out by the Exception Test to allow clearer analysis of the suitability and sustainability of development sites where any doubt exists. This could be appropriate for example for large scale low vulnerability use development such as the Regional Freight Interchange and Redbrick Farm, which are predominately located both within the defended areas of Flood Zone 3a and close distance to the existing flood defences. The most appropriate time to undertake this exercise will be when sufficiently detailed site proposals are available, and as part of site specific FRAs. This should be carried out by extracting and building on the detailed flood hazard information, and planning policy and flood risk management recommendations presented in this Level 2 SFRA. Although it is not a requirement of PPS25 to undertake the Exception Test in these circumstances, it would ensure an early robust justification of sites in Flood Zone 3a to aid planning decision. It would also demonstrate that these sites can be developed in a safe manner without increasing flood risk elsewhere over the expected design life of the scheme, by considering future climate change, and without compromising Peterborough’s Environmental Capital Aspirations.

Policy Recommendation 2

Where the sites are mainly within Flood Zone 1 but partly within Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas then river naturalisation, green infrastructure integration, and water compatibility and low vulnerability land uses should be considered as the first choice in such areas compared to residential uses, unless wider sustainability issues have been fully demonstrated through the PPS25 Sequential Test and Exception Test process.

Policy Recommendation 3

Level 2 SFRA and Detailed WCS findings should be fed into the Core Strategy and associated Development Planning Documents. As part of this, Core Strategy Preferred Options Flood Risk Policy (CS21) should also be updated.

Section 16 and Section 25 give more guidance on how to apply the above recommendation on a site specific basis as well as on a more sub-catchment level basis. 21.2 Additional Site Allocations

Although this SFRA has focussed on the potential strategic sites, it should be remembered that flood risk is not constrained to these sites and has an impact on a larger area of Peterborough as illustrated in Figure D3. Consequently, any future site allocations should take into account both flood risk, flood hazard and the vulnerability of the development to ensure compliance with PPS25 and additional guidance given within this SFRA, WCS and CFMP at a more local and catchment level.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 168 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc A review of other potential development areas that are currently known based on the WCS growth data supplied by PCC and OP has been undertaken with respect to the latest flood zones. The key observations are shown in Table 21-1.

Development Area Flood Risk Comments

Urban Area Residential (100+ Development at Potters Way, Fengate is partially within Flood Zone 2 units)

Class B Development at Third Drove, Perkins, First Drove and Stirling Way is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3a.

Key Service Centres Some proposed development in Thorney is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3a. Thorney and Eye Green/ Eye are surrounded by Flood Zone 2 and 3a limiting amount of land available for development. Sewer flooding incidents are also known at these locations.

Limited Growth Villages Significant portions of Northborough and the areas around Newborough village are located within Flood Zone 3a.

Small Villages Proposed small scale residential Deeping Gate and Peakirk is within Flood Zone 2 / 3a

Table 21-1 Flood risk to potential additional development sites identified by the WCS Growth Data Table 21-2 summarises the villages, settlement hierarchy, potential growth and degree of expected flood risk constraints based on a high level review of the extent of EA Flood Zones 2 and 3 within or around these villages. If new development areas are likely to be proposed within Flood Zone 3 at Thorney, Newborough and Northborough then the Exception Test is necessary following the application of a Sequential Test first. It should be also noted that if Exception Test is to be applied for new development at Northborough and Newborough, then additional hazard mapping outputs will be required for the following watercourses as they were not mapped as part of this Level 2 SFRA:

ƒ Maxey Cut and River Welland - Northborough; and ƒ Folley River and River Welland - Newborough. Depending on the choice of additional site allocations there may be further need to produce hazard mapping for the Peterborough Brooks System. The EA have produced breach hazard mapping on the River Welland (including Maxey Cut and Folley River) and this information should be available to supplement the River Nene hazard mapping in the future. Figure 21-2 illustrates the locations of breaches modelled by the EA as part of the River Welland hazard mapping study. However, there are no overtopping hazard outputs from the EA study on the River Welland or the Peterborough Brooks System, which is mostly undefended except Folley River, parts of Car Dyke and Brook Drain). Therefore if any future sites within the above villages or remaining main urban area of Peterborough outside the River Nene catchment are affected by these watercourses, then there may a further requirement to undertake additional detailed overtopping modelling and hazard mapping within a future overall Level 2 SFRA update.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 169 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Policy Recommendation 4 PCC should ensure that the sequential approach and, where necessary, the Sequential Test and Exception Test are applied prior to the allocation of remaining new development sites that have not already been assessed or determined. These should be carried out using the EA Flood Zones, this Level 2 SFRA (including any future updates) and information from FRAs.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 170 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Settlement Classification* Potential Growth Flood Risk Constraints (Red/ Amber/ Green)

Eye and Eye Green KSC <500

Thorney KSC < 250

Ailsworth LGV < 50

Barnack LGV < 100

Castor LGV <25

Glinton LGV <50

Helpston LGV <50

Newborough LGV <75

Northborough LGV <50

Wittering LGV <175

Wothorpe SV <25

Bainton SV <10

Deeping Gate SV <10

Etton SV <10

Marholm SV <10

Maxey and Castle SV <50 End

Peakirk SV <25

Pillsgate SV <10

Southorpe SV <10

Sutton SV <10

Thornhaugh SV <10

Ufford SV <10

Wansford SV <25

Table 21-2 Village Settlement Hierarchy (*KSC – Key Service Centre, LGV – Limited Growth Village, SV – Small Village)

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 171 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 21-2 Locations of additional breaches mapped by the EA as part of the ongoing Hazard Mapping on the River Welland (Image Source - Courtesy of the EA).

Further Work ƒ Incorporation of the EA hazard mapping for the River Welland to supplement the current Level 2 SFRA hazard mapping on the River Nene. ƒ Production of overtopping hazard mapping on the Peterborough Brooks system as part of future EA mapping programme, Level 2 SFRA update or Peterborough SWMP production. ƒ Determination of any Exception Test needs for non- strategic sites to enable overall development needs within the Peterborough Unitary Authority Area.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 172 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 21.3 Existing Development

Within Peterborough, the main areas of existing development partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3 are:

ƒ Thorpe Meadows; ƒ River Lane; ƒ North Stanground; ƒ Fengate; ƒ Werrington; and ƒ Areas of Fletton adjacent to Fletton Spring. In the surrounding rural area, the following villages are partially located within Flood Zones 2 and 3:

ƒ Eye and Eye Green; ƒ Thorney; ƒ Newborough; ƒ Northborough; and ƒ Etton. Knowledge of the existing areas at risk of flooding should be used to implement flood management measures focussed on minimising the impacts of flooding including:

ƒ Encouraging residents to sign up to flood warning schemes; ƒ Setting up local resilience forums; ƒ Ensuring public preparedness; and ƒ Emergency planning.

Policy Recommendation 5 A future Peterborough Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is further described in Recommendation 15 should consider the existing communities within potential flood risk areas and suggest appropriate flood management measures.

21.4 Flood Zones Updates

Consultation with the EA should be undertaken in order to assess the requirements for any further revisions to the latest Flood Zones within the currently undefended areas of the River Nene and Stanground Lode as a result of the 2D overtopping modelling undertaken within the Level 2 SFRA.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 173 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 22 Policy Topic Area 2 - Flood Risk Management Opportunities 22.1.1 River Nene CFMP

The CFMP13 sets out a range of future management options for the Nene catchment. Of these, Policy P4, take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk in to the future, is the preferred option for the Peterborough and Nene Washes Policy Unit that is shown in Figure D6 in Appendix D. This is achieved by in conjunction with number of other policy options for the remaining policy units upstream of Peterborough so that the social and economic impacts within Peterborough are close to the present level, by offsetting future impacts from climate and development change by making best use of natural storage on the River Nene upstream through enhanced flood storage. Significant environmental gains could also be gained through flood storage creation in conjunction with creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to National and Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets.

The main opportunities within the Peterborough and Nene Washes policy unit identified by the CFMP are:

ƒ Creation and management of wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets; ƒ Linking of the River Nene to the Fens Waterways link for the transfer, storage and benefit of using stored flood waters outside the floodplain; ƒ Release of winter stored floodwaters at time of low flow to address water quality issues; and ƒ Opportunities to work together to influence developing waterfronts and floodplains. The CFMP presents an action plan for Peterborough and Nene Washes which identifies the following tasks:

ƒ Develop flood storage study (EA lead) ƒ Partnership Project with the Nene Washlands Commissioners (EA lead) ƒ Flood Forecasting and Warning delivery plan (EA lead) ƒ Flood Awareness Plan (public and private owners lead) ƒ Emergency Response Plan for WwTW (private owner lead) ƒ Policies in LDF for no inappropriate development within the floodplain (PCC lead) ƒ Policies in LDF to link FRM planning to regeneration and redevelopment (PCC lead) ƒ Develop IUD plan for Peterborough (AWS lead) ƒ Continue with Nene Washes Water Level Management Plan (Nene Washlands Commissioners / EA lead) ƒ Environmental Enhancement Project at Orton Pit SAC (NE lead) The adoption of these strategies will serve to maintain the level of flood risk into the future, taking into account urban growth. Therefore it is concluded that the adoption of these strategies are beneficial to facilitating sustainable growth in Peterborough.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 174 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 22.1.2 River Welland CFMP

The Welland CFMP also took into account the impacts of climate change, urbanisation and changes in land use to develop future scenarios. Future development was accounted for by using development projections from the East Midlands and East of England Regional Assemblies combined with historical trends.

Scenario testing identified that the Welland Peakirk subcatchment (contains WCS study area) had a high sensitivity to increases in urban extent therefore considerable attention should be given to controlling surface water runoff from new developments.

Policy P4 is appropriate to the Peterborough policy unit which is to ‘take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future’.

The main opportunities identified for flood risk management are:

ƒ Implement measures to raise awareness of flood hazards from all sources of flooding ƒ Review problematic surface water drainage systems and sewers ƒ Ensure that new / replacement critical infrastructure is located outside of the floodplain or flood proofed ƒ Use SUDS in new developments which could reduce downstream flood peaks ƒ Incorporate river naturalisation and enhancement schemes into planning requirements for new housing developments Actions for the policy unit are: ƒ Develop a system Asset Management Plan to continue with current level of FRM activities (EA lead) ƒ Asset system and replacement project to investigate feasibility of increasing culvert size on Paston Brook and increasing the outflow of Paston Brook to Werrington Brook and Car Dyke Eye (EA lead) ƒ Develop a SWMP for Peterborough (AWS lead) ƒ Enforce PPS25 within the LDF to ensure no inappropriate development in the floodplain (PCC lead) ƒ Put in place policies within the LDF to ensure commercial property developments are designed with layouts to reduce risks from flooding (PCC lead) ƒ Develop flood awareness plan (EA lead) ƒ Flood warning and forecasting delivery plan to maintain current level of service (EA lead) ƒ Develop an emergency response plan for electricity substation and gas compressor station at risk of flooding (Emergency Services lead) 22.1.3 Positive Planning for Flood Risk Management

This Level 2 SFRA and Detailed WCS will set out the framework for achieving the above CFMP objectives based on the research undertaken and the detailed evidence base gathered. Further to sequential approach to planning and flood risk management described in section 21, new development should be seen as an opportunity to actively improve flood risk management in

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 175 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc the Peterborough area through a portfolio of measures such as improved flood warning and resilience, flood defence upgrades, sustainable drainage, floodplain restoration and positive planning rather than focussing solely on ‘no detriment’ through development control. Integrated environmental solutions should also be incorporated by exploring the key findings from WCS and CFMP. Therefore, flood risk and surface water management recommendations given in subsequent sections should be taken into consideration in future development planning and site approval process together with any other additional recommendations presented in the WCS and CFMP,

Paragraph four of PPS25 highlights the importance of using positive planning to apply Government policy on flood risk management. Therefore, the emerging Local Development Documents in Peterborough should contribute to a sustainable process of positively managing flood risk through a range of measures such as:

ƒ Inclusion of flood risk at the beginning of the planning process to guide developers away from inappropriate development locations; ƒ Promote suitable water compatible uses alongside the key watercourses (e.g. amenity open space, green infrastructure corridors, nature conservation and biodiversity enhancements, flood mitigation measures and water taxi/ navigation); ƒ Support schemes which encourage river naturalisation and floodplain restoration; ƒ Develop initiatives to reduce flood risk such as improved flood warning systems, emergency and evacuation plans; ƒ Incorporate and encourage the adoption of improved flood resilience and resistant measures; ƒ Plan for flood defence and drainage upgrades and their effective maintenance; ƒ Take steps to actively reduce flood risk rather than maintaining a ‘no detriment’ situation managed through development control. A useful discussion on how the above positive flood risk management planning measures can be achieved in Peterborough is given below and the subsequent sections of Part 5 under various policy topic areas. Amongst others, this includes the consideration of potential strategic flood storage areas that can temporarily store flood water during large events promoting the concepts of “Making Space for Water” to reduce overall flood risk in Peterborough and downstream areas in accordance with PPS25 aspirations. Examples of such locations include:

ƒ The river frontage south of Fengate 2, on the north bank of River Nene; ƒ The playing fields west of the Railworld site and the south-western part of the Railworld site, on the north bank of River Nene; ƒ South- Embankment area, on the north bank of River Nene; ƒ Beeby’s Pit and Crowns Lake system within the Stanground Lode catchment; and ƒ Sterling Way area, at the confluence of Marholm Brook and Brooks Drain.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 176 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Policy Recommendation 6 Positive flood risk management planning should be incorporated into development proposals and plans for the Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units. These policy units are highlighted in Policy Recommendation 11 and may need further consideration as part of the planned SWMP, or any future Level 2 SFRA updates. The findings and recommendations of the emerging River Welland CFMP should be factored into the process of ensuring positive flood risk management planning.

22.1.4 Clarified Responsibilities

The responsibilities of key organisations with respect to flood risk and flood defence must be better understood for effective management of flood risk. Submissions to the Pitt Review highlighted the complexity associated with understanding who is responsible for which elements of flooding, and the way in which flooding sources differ. Interim conclusion 33 of the Pitt Review50 suggests that flooding legislation should be updated and stream lined in order to clarify these responsibilities.

Policy Recommendation 7 PCC have established a Peterborough Flood Risk Partnership that should be used to clarify and coordinate roles and responsibilities in relation to flood risk management. PCC should undertake a full Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) in accordance with Policy Recommendation 15, which should highlight priority actions for clarifying the management duties of key parties within Peterborough.

22.1.5 Fens Waterways Link

The Fens Waterways Link proposals will open 240km of waterways, provide 80km of new waterways and increase access to a further 160km. In doing so, the Link will create a new circular waterway benefiting both for leisure and the environment. Within the Peterborough area, the Welland will be linked to the Nene along the Cats Water Drain36

The CFMP also outlines the opportunities for the transfer and storage of floodwater gained by linking the River Nene to the Fen Waterways Link. This would also have the benefit of using stored floodwaters outside the floodplain and the catchment. It should be noted however that Middle Level Commissioners have indicated during the consultations made during the WCS that they will not accept flood waters into their system from the River Nene system maintained by the EA.

This project may also provide opportunities for flood risk management in the south and east of Peterborough, and development in this area should take into account the proposals. Of particular note is the potential opportunity for this within the Great Haddon development. An initial feasibility study for the Waterways Link, Peterborough Strategy, has been commissioned by the EA and is expected to be complete in November 2009.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 177 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Policy Recommendation 8 PCC and EA should further investigate the Fen Waterways Link due to both flood risk management, environmental and leisure enhancements it can bring to the community in Peterborough and surrounding areas.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 178 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 23 Policy Topic Area 3 - Surface Water Management and Use of SUDS 23.1.1 Existing Situation

Much of the sewer system within the study area is separated into storm and foul water. Storm water is not treated prior to discharge into watercourses therefore any urban pollutants washed into the storm network will be conveyed to the river system. The CSOs within the city centre and other urban areas have the potential to increase both flood risk and pollution to the receiving watercourses.

The responsibilities for surface water management currently lie with AWS, PCC, the EA, IDBs and various riparian owners. Interim conclusions from the Pitt Review35 highlighted the need for a partnership approach to managing surface water. Such an approach should have a strong lead; the local authority was identified as potentially taking on this role.

Surface water management will need further investigation due to the extent of urbanisation and the limited understanding of network performance status, in particular, under intense storm events and flooded watercourses.

Hyder Consulting were appointed by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to provide an evidence base to inform the ABI response to the new Floods and Water Bill. As part of this, PCC agreed to undertake the initial stages of a SWMP during which a number of stakeholder consultations was organised and broad scale surface water modelling of the existing main urban area was carried out. The modelling identified a number of critical existing drainage areas across the city and they are illustrated in Figure E1 in Appendix E.

The Existing residential areas where pluvial flooding is predicted according to initial modelling and screening are: ƒ City Centre Catherdral area, Rivergate Centre, St Peters Road car park; ƒ Thorpe Meadows; ƒ River Lane (north of Railworld Site); ƒ Elmore Road / Bradwell Road; ƒ Stirling Way; ƒ Bretton Centre; ƒ Langford Road / Fletton Fields; ƒ Werrington Centre; ƒ West and east of Frank Perkins Parkway, Newark; and ƒ Francis Gardens / Robert Avenue

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 179 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Rivergate, Railworld and Alwalton Hill development sites are located close to these areas. Key recommendations from the study are incorporated into the WCS with the relevant sections highlighted below. The full details are included in the HCL report

Policy Recommendation 9 PCC to ensure “Making Space for Water” concepts and opportunities are incorporated through future development proposals and to reserve suitable land such as Stirling Way area and riverside land on the River Nene for potential strategic flood and drainage management facilities where flood risk issues are known or predicted.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and Integrated Urban Drainage (IUD) Reduction in flood risk and improvements in water quality can be achieved through the utilisation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). SUDS encompass a range of techniques which aim to mimic the natural processes of runoff and infiltration as closely as possible. SUDS schemes should be based on a hierarchy of methods termed the ‘SUDS treatment train’ as illustrated in Figure 22-1.

Figure 23-1 SUDS Treatment Train Management of surface water runoff should use a combination of site specific and strategic SUDS measures, encouraging source control to reduce flood risk and improve water quality. These techniques and long term management and adoption procedures should be fully incorporated into developments at the planning stage to avoid incurring unnecessary future costs. The existing CIRIA SUDS Manual37, CIRIA Model Agreements 38 , the Interim Code of Practice for SUDS39, the technical report Preliminary Rainfall Runoff Management for New Developments40 and the emerging AWS SUDS policy document should also provide a useful starting point for promoting SUDS uptake in Peterborough. Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 180 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc A holistic approach should be taken by considering SUDS and Integrated Urban Drainage (IUD) techniques. This is of particular importance in the changing urban environment where there are a number of interacting drainage routes aligned with a variety of responsible authorities. In order to effectively manage surface water flows in this situation, all forms of drainage, both formal and informal, must be taken into account.

23.1.2 Future Situation

Scope for SUDS and IUD in Peterborough Geology and Soils Within the Nene catchment, the underlying geology of the study area is largely Oxford Clays, which means that the large scale use of infiltration based SUDS techniques is less suitable where key strategic developments are currently planned. On the positive side as a result, any development in the catchment will be unlikely to impact adversely on the hydrogeological environment as a result of any attenuation or infiltration SUDS techniques. However, site specific ground investigations should be undertaken if required to fully inform any drainage strategies.

Figure 22-2 below is an extract from the River Nene CFMP to demonstrate the soil types in and around Peterborough based on the 1:250,000 soils mapping (“Soilscape”) available from the National Soils Research Institution.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 181 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Figure 233-2 Soil types within the Nene catchment in and around Peterborough (Source – River Nene CFMP)

The key characteristics of soil in this area of the Nene catchment include:

ƒ To the west of Peterborough – Includes a relatively small area of shallow loams over limestone; free draining soils which allow infiltration and slow surface runoff rate. ƒ To the north and east of Peterborough – Mainly clay rich soils with seasonally wet deep clays and deep silts. The area is mostly drained by pumping ƒ To the south of Peterborough – Stanground Lode catchment is mainly poorly drained with deep clay soils Across the Fens, there is also a large proportion of seasonally wet clay over a layer of peat, which are poorly drained and naturally saturated for most of the year.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 182 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Groundwater Generally, the EA do not permit the use of infiltration systems within Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1 due to the risk of groundwater pollution but within SPZ 2 the use of soakaways will be reviewed on a site specific basis. Figure E2 in Appendix E shows the SPZs, groundwater vulnerability and river quality objectives for the study area. From this it is evident that there are some zone 1 SPZs and designated ground water in the north west of Peterborough.

In the undefended floodplain, where possible SUDS should be located outside Flood Zone 3 to ensure that they can still function during flood conditions although open outfall ditches and swales across the floodplain still be necessary for both flood risk management and pollution prevention.

Figure 22-3 highlights the potential constraints to be considered when implementing SUDS on propose major development areas in Peterborough within both River Welland and Nene catchments.

Figure 233-2 Potential SUDS constraints

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 183 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Guidance produced by CIRIA41 gives an outline assessment of the SUDS techniques which may be suitable for a particular site based on the relative importance of a range of criteria. The WCS report highlighted that for residential development sites within Peterborough, the highest scoring SUDS techniques are:

ƒ Storm water wetlands; ƒ Wet Ponds; and ƒ Green Roofs.

Policy Recommendation 10 PCC to ensure appropriate SUDS are incorporated into all future developments in Peterborough. The use of attenuation based schemes to improve water quality, and control runoff rates should be fully investigated for new development across Peterborough based on specific surface management policy units that account for local conditions such as ground conditions, catchment response, proximity to major watercourses and localised drainage issues.

Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units It is recommended that within Peterborough Unitary Authority is developers provide suitable SUDS solutions to manage surface runoff from new developments in accordance with the CIRIA guidance37,39 and specific guidance given within this Level 2 SFRA, WCS and CFMPs. Although Core Strategy preferred options, Policy CS21, proposes mandatory SUDS policies for all new development there is a need to depart to some extent to accommodate local and catchment needs when selecting suitable SUDS techniques or replace them with alternative flood risk management measures such as green infrastructure proposals, river naturalisation and floodplain storage creation.

For the city centre area, the space for incorporating SUDS is likely to be limited and this is reflected in the ranking of green roofs as the preferred solution. Swales and permeable pavements may be considered where possible, including grey water and rainwater harvesting systems as wider sustainability measures, in conjunction with separation of existing combined sewers. There are also some contaminated land issues which may limit the potential use of infiltration SUDS and surface water attenuation/ flood storage areas for some of the brownfield regeneration areas.

The catchment response of the Upper Nene and Middle Nene reaches is also very slow due to the largely rural nature of the catchment and the vast natural storage available in the Middle Nene reach. This combined with regulated flow through the operation of Northampton Washlands means that it may take up to 5 days for a flood peak to arrive at Peterborough during a catchment-wide major flood event. Flood water will then subject to the tide lock situation at the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice taking several days to fully discharge the fluvial food water to the tidal section through the Nene Washes. Therefore, the riverside development areas may benefit from the rapid release of the runoff to the River Nene to ensure that it does not coincide with the main flood peak. A smaller amount of on-site storage and treatment still may be required for example to remove the pollutants from the first flush, and to account for local constraints on surface water drainage systems and localised storm events.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 184 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Consultation with the Internal Drainage Boards has highlighted the potential for increasing flood risk in some parts of the IDB system in some cases where surface water runoff is even reduced. This is due to low flow rates and resultant susceptibility to siltation of flat IDB drains. Therefore the IDBs should be consulted with regard to all surface water drainage strategies with the potential to impact on their systems.

Policy Recommendation 11 Although Core Strategy preferred options proposes mandatory SUDS policies across Peterborough it is important that the cumulative impact on surface water drainage systems of development across the city is considered holistically considering the local constraints, catchment response, flood risk, strategic opportunities and other wider benefits as opposed to an individual site basis. In order to achieve this, both SUDS and IUD proposals must be considered at the strategic planning stage based on the recommended Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units in Table 23-1 below, and in supporting surface water management plans and green infrastructure proposals.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 185 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Policy Unit# Suggested Objectives##

Undefended Consideration of rapid release of water from riverside and adjoining development in Lower Nene conjunction with water compatibility uses such as green infrastructure, river naturalisation, Corridor floodplain storage creation including amenity open space that allow additional storage during extreme events

Consideration of developer contributions to promote strategic flood mitigation measures

Use of green roofs, shallow swales and water butts

Separation of combined sewers

Flood resilience and resilient building construction and site layouts within the riverside regeneration areas

Stanground Provision of strategic storage in conjunction with on-site SUDS, water butts and green Lode Catchment infrastructure incorporation

Padholme Drain Compliance with the existing Padholme Flood Protection Strategy and its future revisions to Catchment enhance the current level of protection and account for additional development and climate change impacts

Use of green roofs, green infrastructure and water butts

Thorpe On-site SUDS, water butts and enhance storage at existing Thorpe Hall FSR and existing Meadows channels Catchment

Fletton Spring On-site SUDS, water butts and enhance storage at existing Fletton Spring FSR and Catchment increase capacity of existing channels

Orton Dyke On-site SUDS, water butts and increase capacity of existing channels Catchment

Peterborough Provision of strategic storage in conjunction with on-site SUDS, water butts and increase Brooks capacity of existing channels and Peakirk pumping station’ Consideration of developer Catchment contributions to promote strategic flood mitigation measures

IDB Catchments On-site SUDS, water butts and increase capacity of existing channels and pumping stations by liaising with the relevant IDBs (i.e. Welland and Deeping, North Level, Middle Level, and Dryside and Whittlesey)

# Table 23-1 Recommended Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units All other areas outside the designated policy units should use on-site and/or strategic SUDS subject to ground conditions and further investigations on local needs and constraints.

## Separation of combined sewers is a common objective within entire unitary authority area through the redevelopment proposals but this specifically relevant to the sites covered by the CCAAP as most of the combined sewers are located within the core of city centre area. Flood resilient and resistant buildings and site layouts are also expected within all areas that would have a noticeable risk of flooding from any flooding source during their anticipated design life by taking into account the projected climate change. In addition, water recycling systems are recommended throughout the study area, where possible, as a wider sustainability measure.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 186 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Further Work Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units and their objectives (see Figure E3 in Appendix E and Recommendation 6) should be further developed in conjunction with the SWMP and strategic opportunities discussed below.

23.1.3 Strategic Opportunities

Significant opportunities for integrated urban drainage, SUDS and strategic flood risk mitigation measures are available through growth proposals, regeneration sites and the inclusion of the Green Grid Strategy. However, these opportunities will be lost or reduced unless they can be fully explored and integrated within emerging LDF documents, Area Action Plans (AAP) and masterplans for major development sites. Examples of such opportunities are discussed below.

a) Green Grid Strategy A Green Grid Strategy42 has been produced for the Greater Peterborough Area to ensure that growth in Peterborough is accompanied by the protection and provision of quality green infrastructure. There are six guiding principles for the strategy; connectivity, multi-functionality, extended access, landscape character enhancement, biodiversity enhancement and landmark projects. Suitable SUDS should be integrated in support of all aspects and opportunities for new developments to actively engage in this should be widely encouraged. Figure E4 in Appendix E highlights such opportunity areas which include, but are not limited to:

ƒ Promotion of the River Nene Old Course for grassland and riparian habitats; ƒ South Peterborough Green Parks43 (east and west); ƒ Extending landscaped pathways to enhance city gateways; ƒ New right of way along Car Dyke; ƒ East Peterborough Country Park (Dogsthorpe/Eye); ƒ Crown Lakes Country Park improvement; ƒ Paston Reserve open space; and ƒ The Hamptons green space linkage. Figure E4 and Table 23-2 illustrate that all the major development areas are crossed, and surrounded by existing and proposed green corridors. Therefore there is considerable opportunity to contribute to both biodiversity and surface water management if development sites are planned accordingly.

In addition fixed easements associated with developments adjacent to watercourses should be exploited for their wildlife potential in terms of providing new habitats and linking existing ones.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 187 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Site Existing Green Infrastructure Proposed Green Infrastructure

Hampton ƒ Sustrans Cycle Route ƒ Local GI Corridor 11; South Peterborough ƒ Public rights of way Green Parks West ƒ Stanground Lode watercourse corridor ƒ Rights of way ƒ Orton Pit SSSI/SAC ƒ Proposed GI site C; South Peterborough Green Parks visitor attraction ƒ Classified Public Open Space ƒ Proposed GI Site D; promote field studies ƒ Woodland and shelter belts centre in connection with Orton Pit SAC ƒ Water bodies ƒ Urban GI Corridor ƒ Potential extensions of the landscaped parkways to enhance gateways into the city

Great ƒ Sustrans Cycle Route ƒ Local GI Corridor 11; South Peterborough Haddon ƒ Public rights of way Green Parks West ƒ Stanground Lode watercourse corridor ƒ Woodland areas ƒ Orton Pit SSSI/SCA ƒ Chambers Dole and Two Pond Coppice (CWS) ƒ Woodland and shelter belts

Magna ƒ Oakley Dyke ƒ Proposed GI Corridor 12; South Park ƒ Kings Dyke Peterborough Green Parks East ƒ Various unnamed drains ƒ Fens Waterways Link

Red Brick ƒ Adderley Drain ƒ Proposed Local GI Corridor 10; Car Dyke Farm Flag Fen to Peakirk Corridor

Norwood ƒ Norwood Spinney ƒ Opportunity for a strategic right of way ƒ Car Dyke ƒ Various unnamed drains

CCAAP ƒ Sub-regional Green Infrastructure corridor ƒ Fens Waterways Link ƒ Embankment Park ƒ Rights of way

Table 23-2 Existing and proposed opportunities for SUDS on major development sites

b) South Peterborough Green Parks The South Peterborough Green Parks project43 seeks to identify and create green spaces for communities in south Peterborough, linking development with conservation, recreation and culture. A key theme is the linking of Hampton Nature Reserve and the Nene Washes via a series of connecting green spaces.

Again, this initiative will provide significant opportunity to incorporate SUDS techniques within development areas south of the city.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 188 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc c) Habitat Action Plans The updated Habitat Action Plans (HAP) for Rivers and Streams sets out a raft of measures aimed at improving the quality in and restoring declining watercourses. The use of suitably designed SUDS on new development sites will be important in ensuring that these objectives are met.

The updated HAP for Ponds and Lakes identifies surface water runoff ponds as a new pond category; the importance of open water for providing a diverse range of habitats is highlighted. The promotion of pond and associated habitat creation by the Cambridgeshire Biodiversity Partnership presents a range of opportunities for incorporating appropriately designed ponds into surface water management strategies.

Likewise, the aim of encouraging smaller scale reedbed creation to augment an already rare habitat should also be incorporated into planning for surface water management.

d) Padholme Flood Protection Strategy

Further Work Padholme Strategy and associated strategic mitigation measures only considered the development sites allocated in the adopted Local Plan; consequently the impact of additional development sites as part of growth proposals and future climate change will still require consideration in any future SWMP for Peterborough and additional objectives set out for the Padholme Surface Water Management Policy Unit.

e) City Centre Area Action Plan Whilst considering the anticipated climate change impacts, water and flood risk management and green infrastructure integration within the CCAAP should follow the basic guidance and policy objective recommendations set out within the SFRA, WCS and River Nene CFMP.

Policy Recommendation 12

CCAAP should have due regard to the objectives of the “Undefended Lower Nene” surface water management policy unit and the wider CCAAP area. This means that the CCAAP Consultant’s Recommended Option Final Report (Jan 2009) and Southbank Masterplan will need a review prior to the consultation in Spring 2010 to take into account the key new information that is now available from the Level 2 SFRA, Detailed WCS and CFMP. The “Spatial Development Strategy” should have an enhanced policy section on the “Flood Risk and River Nene” and then a bespoke section within the “Character Area Guidelines” to clearly set out how these objectives will be achieved through the implementation of CCAAP. The relevant features and guidelines should then be incorporated across the remaining character areas.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 189 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Policy Recommendation 13

Combined sewers should be separated for all CCAAP sites if this is feasible as part of the regeneration proposals.

f) Planning System Full use should be made of the planning system to control urban creep (paving over of private gardens and open space). Where possible, incentives should be used to encourage the use of permeable paving and other sustainable techniques. Interim conclusion 9 of the Pitt Review is that householders and business owners should not be allowed to lay impermeable surfaces as ‘of right’35.

Policy Recommendation 14 The effective use of planning system and collaborative working between PCC, the EA and other local authorities should be further strengthened to ensure that development from upstream catchments would not increase flood risk in Peterborough from both River Nene and River Welland. This should be achieved through the effective coordination and integration of local initiatives such as Peterborough Flood Risk Management Partnership (see Policy Recommendation 15) with wider initiatives such as the CFMP Action Plans that the EA and its partners aim to deliver CFMP policies based on the policy appraisal and a range of possible clear and measurable actions that will be taken over the next 100 years to manage flood risk in a specific CFMP policy unit including the Peterborough and Nene Washes Policy unit.

g) River Basin Management Plan The RBMP promotes SUDS with particular reference to reducing the risk of diffuse pollution; this will give further weight to the importance of using SUDS to manage surface water.

In summary, each individual development site will vary slightly in the requirements, particularly in terms of available and existing open space. The key green infrastructure opportunities for the major allocated development sites are outlined in Table 23-2.

h) Surface Water Management Plans The above recommendations and guidance will subject to the proposed Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Peterborough by building on the work done to date on the ABI study, WCS and this Level 2 SFRA. The members of the Peterborough Drainage Group formed as part of the ABI study highlighted the potential for a SWMP, which may even provide evidence to deviate from national planning policy to account for local and catchment needs in certain situations. More detailed information is included within the Peterborough Urban SWMP Screening Report29. The members of the Peterborough Drainage Group that took part in the ABI study have since been formed the Peterborough Flood Risk Partnership in a formal setting. The PFRP will look to undertake a SWMP for Peterborough, including a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment to examine surface water flood risk, and more detailed flood management plans for high risk areas, in accordance with the Flood Risk Regulations 2009.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 190 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc The potential objectives of the recommended SWMP include:

ƒ Determine the role of the different owners and agencies involved in flood alleviation and surface water management; ƒ Determine the standards of maintenance currently set by each organisation and needs for further enhancements to ensure that current drainage systems are also future proofed; ƒ Undertake risk assessments and identify weaknesses and gaps within existing drainage infrastructure in terms of flood and pollution risk management; ƒ Identify and prioritise actions to alleviate and mitigate current and future risks; ƒ Explore opportunities for joint working and knowledge sharing to identify and resolve issues; ƒ Build on the work of existing groups e.g. Water Cycle Steering Group and local multi- agency groups, ensuring a consistent, strategic and coordinated approach; ƒ Agree a process for dealing with complaints, enquiries and requests including during flooding events; ƒ Establish a mechanism to communicate this work to each participating organisation and the Local Resilience Forum obtain their continuing feedback; and ƒ Agree a process for improving the public interface and raising awareness about flooding risk, responsibilities and actions that individuals and local communities can take. The above objectives should be discussed by the Peterborough Flood Risk Partnership and a final decision made such that all members are clear about what the partnership stands for.

Policy Recommendation 15

PCC as the lead organisation of Peterborough Flood Risk Partnership should ensure that a SWMP for Peterborough is produced and implemented in a timely manner by closely working its key stakeholders within an effective partnership framework. Peterborough Unitary Authority Area should be further divided into sub areas to develop appropriate policies and actions for each area. This should undertaken based on the Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units discussed under Policy Recommendation 11 or further subdivision of these policy units, by taking into account: x Existing surface water drainage issues; x Predicted future surface water drainage issues; x Significant areas of new development; x Existing drainage networks and wider catchments; x Funding, resources and timing constraints.

Based on the work done to date, a recommended vision for the Peterborough SWMP is to:

Produce a Surface Water Management Plan that delivers effective flood risk and water quality outcomes for new and existing development within the Unitary Authority area of Peterborough; understanding the causes of surface water flooding, quantifying risks and identifying a range of cost beneficial measures to help manage and mitigate the risks so that all decisions made are evidence based, risk based and future proofed.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 191 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 23.1.4 Summary

The above policy recommendations and guidance are summarised below:

ƒ Updates will need to be made to flood zones as a result of new surface water flood mapping carried out through the preliminary flood risk assessment recommended by the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. ƒ Following these updates, a Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP) should be produced for Peterborough, which includes detailed assessments of subcatchments with the Peterborough Unitary Authority which are deemed high risk. It is recommended that the critical drainage areas shown in Figure E1, are the starting point for selecting the ‘high risk’ areas, and that the SWMP should involve all key stakeholders The work should involve a holistic overview of all SUDS schemes both to determine cumulative impacts of developments and to provide the most efficient management of surface water; ƒ The recently formed Peterborough Flood Risk Partnership should aim to identify and assign all responsibilities relating to drainage in Peterborough and ensure the efficient and timely delivery of a SWMP. This should also include creation of strategic links to total river catchment management in coordination with the EA and other Local Planning Authorities in upstream areas; ƒ The management of surface water should be integral to all new developments; ƒ SUDS schemes and green infrastructure integration should be appropriately chosen and located as part of development proposals and wider initiatives. This should be done based on the underlying objectives of the Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units presented in Figure E3 whilst allowing for localised site constraints and wider catchment management needs through further investigation, following the general principles of the CIRIA SUDS hierarchy whilst focussing on both water quality and quantity; ƒ Subject to the underlying objectives of the Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units, surface water runoff rates and volumes from new developments should be controlled such that they are equivalent to greenfield or 30% below existing for previously undeveloped and developed land respectively; ƒ In undefended floodplain, where possible SUDS should be located outside Flood Zone 3 or 100-Year with climate change outline to ensure that they can still function during flood conditions; open outfall ditches and swales across the floodplain may still be necessary for both flood risk management and pollution prevention. In areas of defended floodplain there may be exceptions to this requirement provided that SUDS are not impacted by any undefended watercourses behind the existing defences; ƒ Where appropriate, all SUDS proposals should take into account and create links with the Green Grid strategy42 as illustrated in Figure E4; ƒ Maintenance schedules must be developed for all new SUDS schemes in order to prevent increased flood risk through dilapidation, siltation and general disrepair; ƒ Urban creep must be managed to prevent the laying of impermeable surfaces in gardens and cartilages and the planning system and collaborative working with the EA and other local authorities should continue to ensure that development from upstream catchments would not increase flood risk in Peterborough from both River Nene and River Welland through the effective implementation and monitoring of the Action Plans within the respective CFMP policy units.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 192 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 24 Policy Topic Area 4 - Management of Residual Risk

Residual risks are those risks remaining after applying the sequential test and taking mitigating actions; the need to manage these risks is outlined in PPS25. The subsequent sections discuss the residual risks to Peterborough and suggest recommendations to address them. 24.1 Maintenance of Raised Defences

Although Peterborough is not within an area classified by the EA as an ‘area benefitting from defences’ according to the published Flood Map, the Nene Washes embankments are a crucial element of the washlands flood management system. Similarly, there are raised defences on the River Welland, Maxey Cut and Peterborough Brooks System.

Therefore it is important that the existing defences are maintained at least to the current standard of protection by taking into account the climate change and development impacts, and monitored to ensure this does not decrease through implementation of relevant policies and action plans within the CFMPs.

Policy Recommendation 16 PCC and EA to support the existing raised defences that benefit Peterborough and wider area.

24.2 Defacto Defences

In addition to the protection afforded by formal defences, defacto defences can also play an important role in protecting areas from flooding. The following defacto defences have been identified as influencing flood risk in Peterborough (see Figure D2):

ƒ The A1179 at Longthorpe stops water spreading north to Longthorpe; ƒ The Nene Valley Railway at Woodston stops flood flows south to Woodston; ƒ The A1139 at Old Fletton stops flood flows spreading east to Stanground; ƒ The Peterborough - Cambridge railway line stops flood flows from a breach at S1 spreading north; and ƒ The IDB embankments along Bevills Leam stop the spread of floodwaters from a breach in the South Barrier Bank.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 193 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Policy Recommendation 17 All relevant stakeholders should be aware of the flood defence roles of the defacto embankments in their responsibility to ensure that the integrity is not de-graded and that development and change is controlled appropriately. The SWMP should include appropriate policies and action plans to ensure this.

24.3 Failure of Flood Defences

This SFRA has examined the potential impacts of a failure in the River Nene defences. The areas immediately behind the existing defences are at highest risk due the combination of depth and velocity. This high risk area is mostly rural except for the Fengate area.

The proposed strategic sites at risk in the event of a breach are Redbrick Farm and the Regional Freight Interchange site. A breach at location S1 or S2 (see Figure B3 in Appendix B) significantly increases the flood hazard at the Regional Freight Interchange site. Breaches at N1, N2, N3 or N4 can also cause flood risk to Redbrick Farm.

In terms of risks to Peterborough as a whole, a breach in the northern River Nene embankment results in extensive flooding across the North Level IDB area. Peterborough, Eye and Thorney are not directly at risk although the A47 east of Thorney is.

A breach in the South Barrier Bank does not increase the flood risk to Peterborough urban area. Whittlesey is also predominantly not at risk due to the elevated position of the town compared to the surrounding washlands.

Policy Recommendation 18 Site Allocation DPD and Planning Policy DPDs should have sufficient policies to account for the risks associated with failure of defences through site specific Flood Risk Assessments if future sites are to be located in the areas protected by the existing flood defences. The current emergency response arrangements should also be reviewed and measures taken accordingly through collaborative working with Peterborough Flood Risk Management Partnership.

24.4 Culvert Blockage

There are a range of culverts and subways incorporated into the River Nene 2D hydraulic model which convey flood flows beneath what would otherwise be considered as barriers to flow. Such pathways can therefore significantly influence the flood risk to different areas and thus the impacts should be understood. These are shown in Figure D2 and summarised as:

ƒ The culvert under A1179 at Longthorpe conveys flood flows to Longthorpe; should this become blocked, flood risk to Longthorpe would decrease and flood risk to Thorpe Meadows would potentially increase although the extensive floodplain on the River Nene would reduce such impacts in practice; ƒ The culvert under the Nene Valley Railway north west of Botolph Green conveys flood flows under the embankment into the public open space to the south. It is considered that a blockage of this culvert would have minimal impacts on flood risk in this area. Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 194 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Further Work Although there are no strategic sites planned in these areas, the SWMP should have some regards to these risks whilst exploring any significant culvert blockage risks in the Peterborough Brooks system in the main urban area. In addition, opportunities for opening up certain existing culverts should be explored in line with “Making Space for Water” strategy the EA’s culverting policy objectives through the future redevelopment proposals.

24.5 Emergency Planning

As highlighted in Section 5.6 before, under the Civil Contingencies Act Peterborough City Council is a Category 1 responder and has a legal requirement to act. As part of the Local Resilience Forum Peterborough City Council sits on the Community Risk Register which is a group responsible for identifying potential hazards in the local community and addressing them in a multi agency approach. Data supplied by this Level 2 SFRA is one of the resources used in this process. Some of the key observations of hazard mapping produced as part of Level 2 SFRA in respect to emergency planning include: ƒ The hazard mapping identified areas of flood risk on the A15 at Stanground / Old Fletton and on the roads around Rivergate as a result of overtopping; ƒ A breach at S1 or S2 results in significant hazard to the Peterborough – Cambridge railway line and the A605 Peterborough to Whittlesey road; ƒ The A47 is inundated by a breach in the northern defences from location N6 eastwards; ƒ For a 100-Year (climate change) overtopping event, there is minimal critical infrastructure (as defined by PCC) located in areas of flood hazard; critical infrastructure at risk are sub stations at Fengate and near the Regional Freight Interchange site; ƒ For a 1000-Year (climate change) overtopping event sub stations at Hampton and Longthorpe and a school at Hampton are at risk; ƒ A breach in the northern embankment at locations N1 or N2 is the most critical for Peterborough due to the impacts on Flag Fen STW and the fringes of Fengate. There is less population and infrastructure at risk further downstream; ƒ Proposed Regional Freight Interchange and Redbrick Farm sites can subject to significant flooding risk due to any breaches of the existing flood defences.

Policy Recommendation 19

The hazard maps produced as part of this SFRA should be used to inform emergency and evacuation plans for both existing communities and proposed developments where risk has been identified; these plans should consider the impacts of flood risk on the transport networks, critical infrastructure and identify priority areas for evacuation; locating new development within areas of high hazard risk should be avoided in the first place.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 195 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 24.6 Flood Warning and Evacuation Plans

The EA operate a flood warning system enabling residents and business to receive alerts of flooding and thus prepare accordingly. Peterborough and the surrounding area is covered by following flood warning areas:

ƒ River Nene Wansford to Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice ƒ River Nene Thrapston to Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice ƒ North Bank Road alongside the River Nene, east of Peterborough and west of Dog-in-a Doublet ƒ River Delph Flood Defences ƒ Whittlesey Dyke, Kings Dyke, Bevills Leam, New Cut, Yaxley Lode and Pig Water

The EA is looking to update its Flood Warning System during 2010 to simplify the warnings issued and create a comprehensive system for the public to use online.

Policy Recommendation 20

It is important that PCC and the Peterborough Flood Risk Partnership encourage existing and new residents to sign up to this flood warning system, and stay abreast of updates being made to the system by the Environment Agency.

.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 196 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 25 Policy Topic Area 5 - Maintenance and Inspection Regimes 25.1.1 Raised Defences

ƒ Raised defences should be regularly inspected and any necessary remedial works undertaken in a timely fashion. 25.1.2 Watercourses

ƒ Clear guidance should be provided on riparian ownership to define where the responsibilities lie ƒ The responsibilities of each riparian owner should be agreed upon and a system put in place to ensure these responsibilities are met 25.1.3 Culverts

ƒ Culverts should be regularly inspected and kept free of debris ƒ Opportunities for opening up certain existing culverts should be explored in line with “Making Space for Water” strategy the EA’s culverting policy objectives through the redevelopment proposals. 25.2 Emergency Planning

ƒ This SFRA should be issued to the emergency planning officers in the Resilience Team at PCC for use in their work including the Community Risk Register. ƒ Flood hazard mapping should be used to inform emergency plans ƒ New development should avoid any rapid inundation zones and areas of high flood hazard ƒ Owners and operators of critical infrastructure should be made aware of the hazard maps and how to interpret them

Policy Recommendation 21 Maintenance and inspection regimes should be explored and addressed through the emerging SWMP in conjunction with any future Site Specific FRAs, Section 106 agreements and community infrastructure levy agreements as part of the planning application process so that maintenance and inspection regimes including the necessary funds can be secured as necessary depending on the likely risks and benefits.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 197 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 26 Policy Topic Area 6 – Developer Guidance on Site Specific FRAs and Development Design 26.1 General

This Level 2 SFRA report should be used as a general baseline for producing site specific FRAs. Any site specific FRAs relating to development sites within the Nene Catchment in Peterborough (see Figure D1 in Appendix D) should also take into account hazard mapping that is presented in Appendix B and C, in order to pass part (c) of the Exception Test, where this is applicable, and also for other sites where depth and velocity information are required to produce site specific FRAs for remaining potential strategic sites. Hazard mapping on the River Welland catchment (see Figure D1 in Appendix D) should be obtained through an updated Level 2 SFRA or directly from the EA when the current study is finished. Further information on water levels, depth and velocity information related to specific sites should be available from the EA on request if they are required for undertaking the site specific FRAs.

In conjunction with the hazard mapping and additional information that may be available from the EA, IDBs and PCC, the following aspects should be considered within FRAs where development is proposed in or adjacent to Flood Zone 2 and 3 subject to Sequential Test Application (including Exception Test where necessary):

ƒ The site layout should be configured such that the most vulnerable uses are located in areas of lowest hazard – see below for further guidance under the relevant strategic site section ƒ Access routes should be located in areas of lowest flood hazard - see below for further guidance under the relevant strategic site section ƒ Proposed floor levels should be a minimum 600mm above the 100-Year (climate change) flood depth within all sites – as stated above, this should be considered for all development in or adjacent to Flood Zone 2 and 3 ƒ Buildings with basement uses should not be permitted ƒ Site occupants should be made aware of the potential frequency and duration of flood events ƒ Flood evacuation plans should be considered and developed if deemed necessary ƒ Any proposed ground raising required to lift development from the floodplain must be fully compensated on a “level for level” and “volume for volume” basis ƒ No development should take place in Flood Zone 3b other than water compatible uses ƒ Development in Flood Zones 3a, 3b and 2 must be subject to a PPS compliant FRA ƒ No development should take place within the designated 9m maintenance strip adjacent to main rivers (without the EA written consent) ƒ Flood resilient and resistant approaches to construction should be used where possible ƒ Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions. All flood risk and surface water management guidance and policy for development in Peterborough must be in accord with the CFMP, Level 2 SFRA and Detailed WCS. Education of those developing and building as well as those living in Peterborough should be promoted to Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 198 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc facilitate a responsible approach to flooding and enable individuals to take ownership to an extent where they believe that their actions can influence flood risk.

In general, site specific FRAs should be undertaken for the following potential strategic sites by taking into account the above points and the additional recommendations presented below. The WCS Detailed Strategy Report also includes a review of the latest drainage proposals for some of these sites and it should be read in conjunction with the following sections. 26.2 Fletton Quays

Site specific recommendations for Fletton Quays are already covered in some detail under Section 17.2 within application of the Exception Test and therefore following text should be read in conjunction with Section 17.2. A site specific FRA should be produced by incorporating these recommendations as part of a planning application but the basic objectives are summarised below.

Flood risk management measures and green infrastructure/ public open space should be incorporated in accordance with the general objectives of Undefended Lower Nene Policy Surface Water Management Unit, which would involve: a) Consideration of rapid release of water in conjunction with water compatibility uses such as green infrastructure and riverside walk along the riverbank, river naturalisation, floodplain storage creation including amenity open space that allow additional storage during extreme events b) Use of green roofs, shallow swales and water recycling systems c) Incorporation of flood resilience and resilient building construction and site layouts within the riverside regeneration areas d) Production of effective flood evacuation plans

A direct surface water outfall to the River Nene is encouraged through the proposed flood storage compensation area to the north east corner of the site subject to the agreement with the EA. 26.3 Courts and Police Station

During the 100-Year (climate change) overtopping event flood hazard is very minimal and constrained to the south east corner of the site. During the 1000-Year (climate change) overtopping event the flood hazard is increased in the south and east of the site ranging from “low” hazard rating to “danger for most” hazard rating. However the main site access can be directed away from the river through Rivergate and Bishops Road avoiding all risk areas.

Site proposals should aim to locate the more vulnerable uses in the north of the site and ensure that access routes and pathways through the site facilitate easy evacuation from the site. Consideration should be given to allocating areas of public open space and/or green infrastructure adjacent to the riverfront.

Flood risk management measures and green infrastructure/ public open space should be incorporated in accordance with the general objectives of Undefended Lower Nene Policy Surface Water Management Unit as indicated above. In addition to the use of green roofs and Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 199 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc water recycling systems within the buildings, a direct outfall swale through the South Embankment area to the River Nene is encouraged to minimise the impact on local surface water drainage network. These swales and adjoining landscaped areas can also act as exceedance flood conveyance corridors during extreme river flooding events. Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of FRA securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions. 26.4 North Embankment

There is no flood hazard on the site during a 100-Year (climate change) overtopping event; during the 1000-Year (climate change) overtopping event there is extensive inundation across the south of the site although this is predominantly of “low” hazard rating with small pockets of “danger for some” hazard rating confined to the southern boundary of the site.

More vulnerable uses should be focused on the areas remote from flood hazard at the northern half of the site and main access routes to and from the site should use Bishops Road or a new link road to A1139 away from flood risk areas.

The main Embankment area is also subject to extensive overtopping during 1000-Year (climate change) overtopping ranging from “low” hard rating to “danger for most” hazard rating. Therefore, these areas should be left as open space whilst maximising opportunities for temporary flood storage during extreme flooding events subject to overcoming any contamination issues. However, the available site information to date indicates that this area is underlain by extensive historic contaminated fill with only a very shallow ground cover throughout the area, which limit ground reprofiling and water storage options due to significant leachate risk unless significant financial investment can be secured for undertaking remediation works.

Flood risk management measures and green infrastructure/ public open space should be incorporated in accordance with the general objectives of Undefended Lower Nene Policy Surface Water Management Unit as indicated above. In addition to the use of green roofs and water recycling systems within the buildings, a direct outfall swale through the South Embankment area to the River Nene is encouraged to minimise the impact on local surface water drainage network. These swales and adjoining landscaped areas can also act as exceedance flood conveyance corridors during extreme river flooding events. Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of FRA securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions. 26.5 Rivergate

Flood hazard on Rivergate is non-existent during a 100-Year (climate change) overtopping event and minimal during a 1000-Year (climate change) overtopping event at the southern boundary/ riverbank and the south-eastern corner with a “low” hazard risk; it is recommended that a corridor of undeveloped land is left as a public open space/ riverside walk feature along these areas in conjunction with low vulnerability uses on the ground floor where any buildings are proposed.

Flood risk management measures and green infrastructure/ public open space should be incorporated in accordance with the general objectives of Undefended Lower Nene Policy Surface Water Management Unit as indicated above. A direct piped outfall sewer to the River Nene is encouraged to avoid the impact on local surface water drainage system although green roofs and water recycling systems are still recommended within the buildings. This area has been currently identified as a Critical Drainage Area within the SFRA and therefore will also need to assess the implications of SWMP outputs prior to giving planning permissions. Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 200 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 26.6 Fengate 2

The south-eastern boundary is subject to significant hazard “danger for most” during a 100-Year (climate change) overtopping event but the remainder of the site is not at risk of flooding due to higher ground levels. With 1000-Year (climate change), hazard risk to the south-eastern corner of the site is further increased with “danger for all” rating immediately outside the site boundary. The remainder of site is still not affected by overtopping but the river frontage to the south of site boundary is subject to “low” hazard risk. Therefore, the residential development should be mainly limited to the northern portion of the site by reserving the southern and eastern sections for river naturalisation, flood storage enhancement and green infrastructure incorporation.

Flood risk management measures and green infrastructure/ public open space should be incorporated in accordance with the general objectives of Undefended Lower Nene Policy Surface Water Management Unit. The available site information to date indicates that this area is underlain by extensive historic contaminated fill with only a very shallow ground cover throughout the area, which limits ground reprofiling and water storage options due to potential leachate risk. Therefore, this site clearly provides an opportunity to provide additional flood compensation storage for any lost volume as a result of Fletton Quays regeneration site that was discussed above, potentially leading to an overall flood risk reduction in Peterborough on the River Nene through the city centre area and downstream areas, by taking into account the overall net floodplain volume gained through flood mitigation/ river naturalisation/ green infrastructure incorporation on all regeneration sites along the river frontage. However, the significant financial investment that will be required for undertaking essential land remediation works within the suggested temporary flood storage area may be secured through the redevelopment interest associated with the Defra funded LifE demonstration project (Long-term Initiatives for Flood-risk Environments) and additional investment secured through developer contributions from the remaining CCAAP sites .

In addition to the use of green roofs and water recycling systems within the buildings, a network of shallow swales through the green infrastructure corridors that would finally discharge to the River Nene should be considered for surface water management and flood exceedance routes purposes. 26.7 Carbon Challenge Site

There is no flood hazard on the site during a 100-Year (climate change) overtopping event. During the 1000-Year (climate change) overtopping event there is an area of “low” hazard rating immediately to the south of the railway line through the central portion of the northern site boundary. It is recommended that residential buildings are avoided in this area if possible and also main site access/ egress routes to London Road should be located outside this area.

A drainage strategy should be produced as part of a Site Specific FRA to fulfil the general objectives of appropriate Surface Water Management Policy Unit and local drainage constraints depending on the chosen outfall location. The options for discharge locations may be available directly to the River Nene through a network of swales and a railway culvert in conjunction with Flettton Quays development or alternatively to the Mortons Leam/ Fletton Spring (by avoiding a culvert crossing under the Railway line to the north) if land ownership and drainage constraints can be resolved. Green roofs and water recycling systems should be considered together with attenuation areas depending on drainage constraints of any existing railway culvert crossings or receiving watercourse. Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of FRA securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 201 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 26.8 Railworld

North of River Nene (Site Areas A and Area B)

No areas of hazard are predicted for a 100-Year (climate change) overtopping event.

During a 1000-Year (climate change) event an area on the west of the site is inundated including a small area of “danger for all” extreme hazard towards the river bank. Access routes should be directed away from this area towards River Lane as this is on the edge of the inundated area of low hazard to the north, leading to Thorpe Road which is not affected by river flooding by anyway. Initial surface water modelling has indicated that River Lane may subject to significant surface water flooding. A part of this road is not adopted by PCC and lacks a formal drainage system - surface water ponding has occurred in the past. Further investigation on surface water risk should be undertaken through the SWMP or a site specific FRA prior to granting planning permission for this site.

The northern and western site boundaries are adjacent to an area of extreme hazard during a 1000-Year (climate change) event. Only the site area that is not impacted by flooding should be considered for residential development leaving other areas for river naturalisation and flood storage enhancement opportunities, in accordance with the general objectives of Undefended Lower Nene Policy Surface Water Management Unit as indicated above. In addition to the possible use of green roofs and water recycling systems within the proposed development, a direct outfall swale through the existing wildlife garden is encouraged to minimise the impact on local drainage network and also to improve wildlife and biodiversity potential. Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of FRA securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions.

South of River Nene (Site Areas C1, C2 and D)

Parts of the site (Area C1) are within the functional floodplain of the River Nene and therefore should remain as it is with potential additional enhanced water compatible uses as part of the overall development.

The remaining areas are not much impacted during 100-Year (climate change) although the southern boundary of area C1 gets close to the risk area due to the flood flow route under the Nene Valley Railway embankment.

The entire site is significantly inundated during 1000- Year (climate change) overtopping event with considerable amount of “danger for most” hazard risk. Although the proposed use within areas C2 and D are low vulnerability the predicted flood risk should be factored in the exhibition centre and car park proposals. For example, by incorporating suitable flood resilience measures, safe access/ egress routes and emergency evacuation plans.

Flood risk management measures and green infrastructure/ public open space should be incorporated in accordance with the general objectives of Undefended Lower Nene Policy Surface Water Management Unit as indicated above. A direct piped outfall sewer to the River Nene is encouraged to avoid the impact on local drainage system in conjunction with possible use of green roofs and water recycling systems.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 202 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 26.9 Great Haddon

Stanground Lode is overtopped during a 100-Year (climate change) event creating a possible flood route through the development towards low-lying parts, comprising areas of “low” and “danger for most” flood hazard.

This flood route becomes more significant with further areas of extreme hazard are increased during a 1000-Year (climate change) event reaching certain parts of Hampton Vale and Hampton Hargate Development. This risk will need further investigation through a site specific FRA in conjunction with an improved hydraulic model and hydrological inputs of the Stangound Lode as the existing model may have some limitations compared to the River Nene ISIS/TUFLOW model due to the limited survey information and gauged flow/level data used in the model development. Following this hydraulic modelling if hazard risk is still evident, then the existing master plan may need alteration to avoid more vulnerable uses within the identified flood route and also to prevent any adverse impact on the nearby Orton Pits SAC due to flood water.

According to the current masterplan only open space areas and green wedges are affected by the identified risk area within the Great Haddon development. However, the new link road appears to have affected by the flood route and this will certainly need further investigation through a site specific FRA so that safe access/ egress can be maintained during extreme flood events whilst not increasing flood risk elsewhere (including to Orton Pits SAC and Haddon Lake SAC) due to any displaced flood volume and/or obstruction to flow paths. Any river crossing over the Stanground Lode through this area will need further modelling as part of the FRA in close consultation with the EA. Any proposed ground raising required to lift development from the floodplain must be fully compensated on a ‘level for level’ and ‘volume for volume’ basis up to 100 year plus climate change level. It should also be provided on land that currently does not flood but adjacent to the floodplain so it is able to fill and drain naturally.

Green corridors adjacent to the existing watercourses and any new watercourses should be maintained to accommodate the predicted areas of flooding and ensure that development does not occur in the floodplain.

A drainage strategy should be produced as part of a Site Specific FRA to fulfil the general objectives of Stanground Lode Surface Water Management Policy Unit that involves provision of strategic storage in conjunction with on-site SUDS, water recycling systems and green infrastructure incorporation. SUDS measures should be provided outside Flood Zone 3 and 100-Year (Climate Change) extents. Maintenance schedules should also be submitted with drainage strategy element of FRA securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions. Detailed Strategy WCS report includes further information on a review of current drainage proposals for this site. The new overflow channel that has been proposed to the south of the Stanground Lode, as part of this drainage strategy in conjunction with on-site SUDS, to divert excess flood flows from Stanground Lode to Beeby’s Pit and Crown Lake system would also help to addressing the overtopping flood risk to Great Haddon and Hampton developments and to Orton Pit and Haddon Lake SACs discussed above, if the overflow weir level is set at an appropriate level below the threshold ground level along the flood flow route. Therefore, this proposal is encouraged and should be further explored in accordance with the additional guidance given in the Level 2 SFRA and WCS in consultation with the EA.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 203 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 26.10 Norwood

This site is also located at the upstream reaches of the Car Dyke within Flood Zone 1 except for very small strip of Functional Floodplain, Flood Zone 3b, adjacent to the riverbank. Hazard mapping was not produced within the Level 2 SFRA for this site as significant overtopping risk from the Car Dyke is not envisaged to the site where residential uses are proposed.

The proposed strategic right of way as part of the Green Grid Strategy along the left bank of the Car Dyke provides an excellent opportunity to incorporate green infrastructure and enhance biodiversity potential within potential flood risk areas, reinforcing Defra’s “Making Space for Water” concepts along the entire length of left bank of Car Dyke.

A drainage strategy should be produced as part of a Site Specific FRA to fulfil the objectives of Peterborough Brooks Surface Water Management Policy Unit. As the site is located in the upstream reaches of the Car Dyke this should include a range of on-site SUDS such as water butts, green roofs, permeable paving, swales, wetlands and balancing areas so that outfall to the Car Dyke would be at the greenfied runoff rate. The majority of the site appears to be underlain by a minor aquifer which will guide appropriate SUDS techniques for the site. Detailed Strategy WCS report includes further information on a review of current drainage proposals for this site. Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions. 26.11 Redbrick Farm

The majority of the site is within an area of significant hazard due to a breach in the northern Nene embankment. Management of this risk should be in line with the management of residual risks discussed in section 23 and should include:

ƒ The site layout to be configured such that the most vulnerable uses are located in areas of lowest hazard; ƒ Access routes should be located in areas of lowest flood hazard; ƒ Proposed floor levels should be a minimum 600mm above the 100-Year (climate change) flood depth ƒ Buildings with basement uses should not be permitted ƒ Site occupants should be made aware of the potential frequency and duration of flood events ƒ Flood evacuation plans must be developed Any proposed ground raising required to lift development from the floodplain must be fully compensated on a ‘level for level’ and ‘volume for volume’ basis up to 100 year plus climate change level. It should also be provided on land that currently does not flood but adjacent to the floodplain so it is able to fill and drain naturally.

If this is taken forward by developers a drainage strategy should be produced as part of the Site Specific FRA to satisfy the North Level District IDB and the Padholme Catchment Flood Risk Management Strategy and to recognise the needs of this particular Surface Water Management Policy Unit. Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of FRA securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 204 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 26.12 Regional Freight Interchange

As and when firmer proposals are developed for this site, the flood implications will need further investigation through a detailed site specific FRA. Information presented in this Level 2 SFRA will assist in providing some further baseline information for such site specific investigations.

The Level 2 SFRA has illustrated that the hazard risk to this site through a potential breach at locations S1 and S2 would be extreme. To completely mitigate this risk it would involve a significant amount of ground raising across the site or potentially elevating buildings, however, because of the flood routes and implications of any lost floodplain storage will need compensation on a “level for level” basis and “volume for volume” basis this is considered significant in assessing the impact on the overall flood cell, and full consultation with the EA is required. Alternatively, as the site is within the defended floodplain of the River Nene it is unlikely that flood compensation is required unless there would be significant impact on the local drainage system. If large quantities of flood compensation are deemed to be necessary then it may be not feasible to find suitable locations for such compensation to provide the required volume due to the low-lying nature of the land. In any case, a robust and easily implementable flood evacuation plan and flood resilience measures will be essential part of the FRA and site proposals to ensure that safety of all future employees can be ensured in a coordinated manner under an emergency situation.

A drainage strategy should also be produced as part of a Site Specific FRA to fulfil the general objectives of Drysides and Whittlesey IDB and Middle Level Commissioners Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Policy Units. This is likely to involve a range of on-site SUDS including balancing areas, wetlands, swales, green roofs and water recycling systems. Maintenance schedules should be submitted with drainage strategy element of the FRA securing the maintenance and to inform financial contributions.

Policy Recommendation 22

Planning Policy DPD should have clear high level flood risk and surface water management guidance for developers on undertaking FRAs, development design concepts and developer contribution mechanisms for strategic and local flood risk mitigation measures based on Level 2 SFRA and Detailed Strategy WCS. In addition to the general guidance applicable across the Unitary Authority Area it should have specific policy guidance for the potential strategic sites including the CCAAP sites by building on the advice given above.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 205 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 27 Policy Topic Area 7 - Windfall Sites

A windfall site is defined as:

“A site not specifically allocated for development in a development plan, but which unexpectedly becomes available for development during the lifetime of a plan. Most "windfalls" are referred to in a housing context. They tend to be very small sites for one or a small number of homes”. (Source www.planningportal.gov.uk)

Given that such sites are not derived from a sequentially tested allocation, they will need to be subject to the Sequential, and where required, the Exception Tests at the planning application stage. In order to assist in the application of the Exception Test to windfall sites, the PPS25 Practice Guide recommends that a checklist of local sustainability targets is developed based on the Local Authority Sustainability Appraisal22 where available. A sustainability appraisal for the Core Strategy Preferred Options has been undertaken and therefore this document should be referred to. The six sustainability objectives for Peterborough are:

ƒ To improve the health of Peterborough’s population; ƒ To support communities and meet the needs of people in Peterborough; ƒ To develop Peterborough’s economy in ways that meet peoples needs; ƒ To meet the people of Peterborough’s access needs with least damage to communities and the environment; ƒ To maintain and improve Peterborough’s environmental quality and assets; and ƒ To minimise consumption of natural resources in Peterborough and beyond.

Policy Recommendation 23

Windfall site applications should use the Level 1 and Level 2 SFRA as the basis for flood risk information and guidance available for sites. Where the hazard mapping relates to such sites it should be noted development should avoid “danger for all” as it is likely that the EA will object to development in these locations.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 206 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc PART 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 207 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 28 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from this report:

Development Needs ƒ A review of national, regional and local guidance and strategies was undertaken which highlighted the important role of the SFRA in ensuring that regional targets and aspirations can be met; ƒ Peterborough suffers from low retail rankings, a lack of vibrancy in the City Centre, out dated office space and a poor reputation therefore there is a significant need for re- development and regeneration; and ƒ The Regional Spatial Strategy has tasked Peterborough with providing 25,000 houses and 20,000 jobs between 2001 and 2021.

Historical Approach to Site Selection ƒ A Level 1 SFRA was completed in 2008 which was used to inform the detailed strategy work carried out as part of the Integrated Growth Study (IGS); ƒ The EA Flood Zone mapping was released early to PCC which ensured that the most up- to-date information was used in the production of the IGS; ƒ The IGS was prepared as a strategic study to identify and prepare the most suitable and sustainable spatial growth pattern; ƒ Constraints analysis was carried out which led to the development of three Conceptual and Spatial Options and resultant selection of a Recommended Option; ƒ An Integrated Resource Model (IRM) was developed to quantitatively measure the sustainability and resource implications of options put forward in the IGS; ƒ The IRM used a broad range and diversity of indicators, including flood risk, to assess the sustainability of the Spatial Options and consider the constraints and opportunities to bring forward a sustainable pattern of growth; ƒ The Recommended Option estimated dwelling numbers and areas of employment land; ƒ The Flood Zone 1 sites identified in the Recommended Option gave Peterborough two large mixed use urban extensions: Norwood and Great Haddon, some city centre sites with regenerative potential around the railway station and in the southern part of the city centre, and small amounts of additional employment land in predominately residential urban extensions; ƒ No City Centre sites in Flood Zone 1 were considered significant enough to enable greater promotion of the River Nene usage or balancing the use and vibrancy appropriately across the city centre, one of Peterborough’s key aspirations; ƒ The following sites were tested through the Sequential Test process based on the Level 1 SFRA Flood Zones: Redbrick Farm; the South Bank Carbon Challenge site; the South Bank Fletton Quays site, North Embankment; the Courts, Police Station and Riverside car park site; Railworld; and Fengate. Conclusions reached during the IGS are now superseded by the outcomes of this SFRA Level 2 with the revised flood zones. These results are summarised under the next heading.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 208 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc Works Carried out for Level 2 SFRA ƒ In terms of Flood Risk Management infrastructure, the operation of the washlands during flood events assists in managing and reducing flood risk to Peterborough and the Regional Freight Interchange and Redbrick Farm sites are protected by the existing raised defences; ƒ A combined 1D-2D ISIS-TUFLOW model of the River Nene and Stanground Lode was constructed and used to assess the flood risk due to overtopping of, and breaches in, the existing defences. This model has been used to predict flood risk to the identified strategic sites for 100-year and 1000-year with and without climate change impacts; ƒ Strategic sites at risk of flooding due to overtopping are; Regional Freight Interchange, Great Haddon, Courts and Police Station, North Embankment, Fengate 2, Rivergate, Railworld, Fletton Quays and Carbon Challenge; ƒ A breach at N1, N2, N3 or N4 will put Redbrick Farm at risk and a breach at S1 or S2 will increase flood risk at the Regional Freight Interchange site; ƒ Broad scale surface water modelling was carried out and identified a number of critical drainage areas across the city; Rivergate and Alwalton Hill are located close to these areas; ƒ An assessment of residual risk was made which identified defacto defences at the A1179 Longthorpe, Nene Valley Railway Woodston, A1139 Old Fletton, the Peterborough to Cambridge railway line and the IDB embankments along Bevills Leam; ƒ The strategic sites at risk in the event of a breach in the River Nene defences are Redbrick Farm and the Regional Freight Interchange site. ƒ There is a potential for flood extents to be altered as a result of culvert blockage at Longthorpe and Botolph Green; ƒ Knowledge of the existing areas at risk of flooding should be used to implement flood management measures focussed on minimising the impacts of flooding.

Implications of Flood Zone Updates ƒ Additional work carried out by the EA during spring 2009 resulted in changes to the defined flood zones; ƒ The revised flood zones show no changes to the following strategic sites: Norwood, Paston Reserve, Alwalton Hill, the Station Quarter, the District Hospital Site, the South Bank London Road allotments and Football Ground sites and Rivergate. These sites are all still wholly or predominantly within Flood Zone 1. ƒ Further investigation may be required into the hazard that surface water flooding presents to the Rivergate site in order to provide clarity on the level of risk which should be taken into consideration in any future development plans. The EA ASTSWF data suggests that this area has experienced historic surface water flooding, but further details of the event(s) (e.g. depth, cause and date) are unknown. ƒ There have, however, been slight changes to Stanground South and Great Haddon. Stanground South is now 99.3% within Flood Zone 1 (instead of the previous 100%). At Great Haddon the area of Flood Zone 3b has decreased and the area of Flood Zones 1 and 3a have increased as a result. Great Haddon is now 95% within Flood Zone 1 (up from 94.5%). Both sites are still predominantly within Flood Zone 1. ƒ For sites partially or predominantly in Flood Zones 2 and 3 the following changes to Flood Zones were observed: Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 209 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc ƒ The percentage of the Redbrick Farm site in Flood Zones 1&2 has reduced considerably, and the area in Flood Zone 3a has increased considerably, now standing at 88.8%. ƒ 55% of the RFI site falls into Flood Zone 3a. ƒ North Embankment site is now 100% within Flood Zone 1 ƒ The percentages of the Carbon Challenge site in Flood Zones 2 and 3 have decreased so that this site is now 96.5% within Flood Zone 1. None of the site falls within Flood Zone 3a. ƒ A significant area of the Fletton Quays site (83.9%) is now in Flood Zone 1. 10.4% of the site falls within Flood Zone 2 and 5.8% within Flood Zone 3a. ƒ The area of the Courts and Police Station site in Flood Zone 1 has increased to 90% (from 71%) with smaller areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3 accordingly. ƒ Overall the Railworld site has experienced a significant increase in the area of Flood Zone 1 (now 45.3%) and a corresponding decrease in the area of Flood Zone 3a. In terms of the area where residential is specifically being proposed 74.5% of this area is now in Flood Zone 1. The Railworld site is, however, the only strategic site investigated here containing Flood Zone 3b land. ƒ A considerably greater area of the Fengate 2 site is now in Flood Zone 1 (93.8% compared to 16.3 ha) and accordingly much less of the site is in Flood Zone 3a. ƒ The sites deemed to pass the sequential test (using a sequential approach to growth within the site) are: South Bank Carbon Challenge; North Embankment; the Police station, Courts & Riverside car park site, Fengate 2 and South Bank Fletton Quays. ƒ Further work is recommended for Redbrick Farm, the Regional Freight Interchange site and Railworld in order to demonstrate the suitability and sustainability of the sites for development. ƒ The Exception Test was carried out for Fletton Quays, which was deemed to pass all three parts. The development at Fletton Quays is a keystone development for the regeneration and renewal of the City Centre and Peterborough as a whole. The development is on previously developed brownfield land and can be made safe through minor changes in layout, appropriate signing and participation in the EA flood warning scheme.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 210 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc 29 Recommendations

Key recommendations identified as part of this level 2 SFRA are given below. The numbering of the points is purely for ease of referral and is not related to the priority of the recommendations:

i. The Policy Recommendations 1 to 23 given in Part 5 should be further considered by PCC to identify and implement the necessary actions; ii. Raised defences should be regularly inspected and any necessary remedial works undertaken in a timely fashion; iii. Clear guidance should be provided on riparian ownership to define where the responsibilities lie and a system put in place to ensure these responsibilities are met; iv. Culverts should be regularly inspected and kept free of debris; v. This SFRA should be issued to the emergency planning department at PCC and flood hazard mapping should be used to inform emergency plans; vi. New development should avoid any rapid inundation zones and areas of high flood hazard; vii. Owners and operators of critical infrastructure should be made aware of the hazard maps and how to interpret them; viii. The management of surface water should be integral to all new developments; ix. Surface water runoff rates and volumes from new developments should be monitored and appropriately controlled; x. All new developments should incorporate appropriate SUDS techniques to manage surface water; SUDS guidance produced by CIRIA, the EA and AWS should be used where relevant; xi. SUDS schemes should be appropriately located within the development and should follow the principles of the SUDS hierarchy and should focus on both water quality and quantity; xii. A Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) should be produced for Peterborough in a process involving all key stakeholders; xiii. Where appropriate, all SUDS proposals should take into account and create links with the Green Grid strategy; xiv. Maintenance schedules must be developed for all new SUDS schemes in order to prevent increased flood risk through dilapidation, siltation and general disrepair; xv. Urban creep must be managed to prevent the laying of impermeable surfaces in gardens and curtilages; xvi. A holistic overview of all SUDS schemes must be taken both to determine cumulative impacts and to provide the most efficient management of surface water. This may result in higher allowable runoff rates on an individual development site as a result of its strategic position higher up a SUDS management train; xvii. An Integrated Urban Drainage (IUD) Group for Peterborough should be formed with the aim of identifying and assigning all responsibilities relating to drainage in Peterborough; xviii. Peterborough should be divided into sub areas to develop appropriate surface water management policies in each area; xix. Development in Flood Zones 3a and 2 must be subject to a PPS compliant FRA and this Level 2 SFRA should be used as a baseline framework for producing Site specific FRAs

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 211 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc taking into account hazard mapping in order to pass part (c) of the Exception test where this is applicable; xx. No development should take place in Flood Zone 3b other than water compatible uses; xxi. No development should take place within the designated 9m maintenance strip adjacent to watercourses; xxii. Flood resilient and resistant approaches to construction should be used where possible; xxiii. In order to assist in the application of the Exception Test to windfall sites, a checklist of local sustainability targets should be developed based on the Sustainability Appraisal; xxiv. All guidance and policy for development in Peterborough must be in accord with the CFMPs; xxv. Education of those developing and building as well as those living in Peterborough should be promoted to facilitate a responsible approach to flooding and enable individuals to take ownership to an extent where they believe that their actions can influence flood risk; xxvi. Future site allocations should take into account both flood risk, flood hazard and the vulnerability of the development to ensure full compliance with PPS25.

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 212 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc REFERENCES

1 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now CLG) (2000) Planning Policy Guidance 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPS25)

2 Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPS25)

3 Opportunity Peterborough & Peterborough City Council, (2008) Peterborough SFRA Level 1 Update

4 Peterborough City Council (2008) Peterborough Core Strategy Preferred Options Report

5 Opportunity Peterborough & Peterborough City Council (2007/08) Peterborough Integrated Growth Study

6 Peterborough City Council (2008/09) Peterborough Water Cycle Study

7 Communities and Local Government (2007) Development and Flood Risk A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25

8 Communities and Local Government (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development

9 Government Office for the East of England (2008) East of England Plan: The Revision to the Spatial Strategy for the East of England

10 Peterborough Local Plan First Replacement Peterborough City Council, Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement), adopted 2005, chapter 6. Available at: http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/peterborough/text/00cont.htm

11 Atkins (2004 and updated 2007) Padholme Flood Protection Strategy

12 Capita Symonds (2009) East of England Regional Assembly Regional Flood Risk Appraisal

13 Environment Agency (2009) River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan

14 Environment Agency (2008) River Welland Catchment Flood Management Plan

15 Opportunity Peterborough & Peterborough City Council (2008) Peterborough Public Realm Strategy

16 Experien Retail Ranking

17 Llewellyn Davies in Association with Steer Davies Glebe and Robert Huggins Associates (2003) Peterborough Sub- Regional Study

18 Peterborough City Council (2008) City Centre Area Action Plan

19 Peterborough City Council (2008) Statement of Community Involvement

20 Peterborough City Council (2007) Draft Peterborough Employment Land Review

21 Peterborough City Council (2008) Peterborough Housing Land Supply / Availability Study,

22 Peterborough City Council (2008) Peterborough Core Strategy Development Plan Document Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Report

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 213 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc

23 Peterborough City Council (2007) Peterborough Settlement Hierarchy Study http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page- 14614

24 Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing

25 Halcrow (2007) Peterborough Residential Density Study

26 Opportunity Peterborough & Peterborough City Council (2007) Peterborough Integrated Growth Study Economic Scenarios Report

27 East of England Development Agency (2006 – 2008) Regional Economic Strategy

28 Halcrow (2008) Environment Agency River Nene Models: Report and Results

29 Opportunity Peterborough (2009) Peterborough Urban Surface Water Management Plan Screening Report

30 DEFRA and Environment Agency (2006) Flood Risks to People Phase 2 FD2321

31 DEFRA and Environment Agency (2005) Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development FD2320

32 Halcrow (2007) Whittlesey Washes Flood Study

33 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (1999) Flood Estimation Handbook

34 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology NWL Flow Archive available at www.nwl.ac.uk

35 Sir Michael Pitt (2007) Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods

36 Fen Waterways Link; information available at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/navigation

37 CIRIA C697 ‘SUDS Manual’

38 CIRIA C625 Model Agreements for SUDS

39 CIRIA Interim Code of Practice for SUDS

40 Environment Agency / DEFRA (2007) Preliminary Rainfall Runoff Management for Developments (W5-074/A)

41 CIRIA C609 SUDS Hydraulic, Structural and Quality Advice

42 Peterborough City Council (2006) Peterborough’s Green Grid Strategy

43 South Peterborough Green Parks; information available at www.gpp-peterborough.org.uk

Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment—Level 2 Page 214 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 x:\lwhoecr\restricted\urc\files\08 environment (s)\s.5 - water cycle study\sfra\(d) deliverables\(ii) reports\sfra level 2 final draft\peterborough sfra l2 final draft.doc