LEA MARSTON DEPOT Drainage Strategy

WARWICK FIRE STATIONS: LEA MARSTON DEPOT Drainage Strategy

Curtins Ref: 071300-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002

Revision: V01

Issue Date: 15 September 2020

Client Name: Warwickshire County Council

Site Address: Lea Marston Depot, Coton Road, Lea Marston

Warwick B76 0DN

Curtins 56 The Ropewalk, Nottingham, NG1 5DW Tel: 0115 941 5551 www.curtins.com

STRUCTURES • TRANSPORT PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL • CIVILS & INFRASTRUCTURE • SUSTAINABILITY • STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Birmingham • Bristol • Cardiff • Douglas • Edinburgh • Kendal • Leeds • Liverpool • London • Manchester • Nottingham 071300-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002 WARWICK FIRE STATIONS: LEA MARSTON DEPOT

Drainage Strategy

Rev Description Issued by Checked Date

V01 Planning Issue AH SW 15/09/20

This report has been prepared for the sole benefit, use, and information for the client. The liability of Curtins Consulting Limited with respect to the information contained in the report will not extend to any third party.

Author Signature Date

Aidan Hogan BEng (Hons) 15/09/20 Senior Engineer

Reviewed Signature Date

Stuart Williamson BEng (Hons) AMICE 15/09/20 Principle Engineer

071300-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002 WARWICK FIRE STATIONS: LEA MARSTON DEPOT

Drainage Strategy

Table of Contents

1.0 Surface Water ...... 3

1.1 National Guidelines ...... 3

1.2 Proposed Surface Water Discharge ...... 4

1.3 Proposed Surface Water Design ...... 5

2.0 Foul Water ...... 7

3.0 Appendices ...... 8

071300-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002 WARWICK FIRE STATIONS: LEA MARSTON DEPOT

Drainage Strategy

Drainage Strategy 1.0 Surface Water

1.1 National Guidelines

The aim of the surface water drainage proposals is to focus on the capture and management of all surface water within the site boundary, to prevent any likelihood of flooding to the proposed development, adjacent sites and infrastructure.

General national guidance for the design of the surface water drainage systems include the following:

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) • Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems, DEFRA, March 2015 • Written Ministerial Statement regarding Sustainable Drainage (HCWS161) • The SUDS Manual – C753, CIRIA Industry Best Practice Guidance • Flood Risk Planning Practice Guidance • Building Regulations Part H

The NPPF recognises that flood risk and other environmental damage can be managed by minimising changes to the volume and rate of surface runoff from development sites and recommends that priority is given to the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) in new developments.

Building Regulations 2010 Requirement H3 stipulates that rainwater from roofs and paved areas is carried away from the surface to discharge to one of the following, listed in order of hierarchy:

I. Discharge into the ground; II. Discharge to a surface water body; III. Discharge to a surface water sewer; IV. Discharge to a combined sewer where there are absolutely no other options and only where agreed in advance with the relevant sewage undertaker.

The site details are as follows:

New Training Facility for Warwickshire Fire Service Lea Marston Depot Coton Road Lea Marston Warwick B76 0DN

OS Grid Reference:

420756, 293782

The site covers a total area of 0.26ha and is currently undeveloped grassland. It is bound to the south east by a concrete access road then concrete bank to the River Tame / Lean Marston Lakes, to the south west by a concrete access road, and with the remaining boundaries finished as grassed land. The site is crossed by an overgrown historic access track and has no formal drainage features. A site location plan is included in Appendix A.

071300-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002 WARWICK FIRE STATIONS: LEA MARSTON DEPOT

Drainage Strategy

DrainageThe site Strategy is intended to be used as a training facility for Warwickshire Fire Service and the proposal for the site includes the construction of a new fire training house, welfare facilities and external hardstanding areas that will allow for the circulation of fire-trucks.

The proposed site layout can be found in Appendix A.

1.2 Proposed Surface Water Discharge

Discharge into the ground

A Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report was undertaken by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited in November 2019 (Ref: 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE- 0011_S0_P01.1).

The report refers to the British Geological Survey records which state that the site is underlain by superficial alluvial deposits, which typically comprise clay, silt, sand and gravel. The bedrock geology under the site comprises the Sidmouth Mudstone Formation, which is classified as a secondary Aquifer of lower permeability layers. The study also found that made ground is likely to be present across the site. In addition the topographical survey shows that the site level is approximately 2.5m above the water level of the adjacent river at the time of the survey The combination of a likely high groundwater table, the impermeable strata and the possible contamination from made ground deems as an unsuitable form of surface water discharge.

Extracts from the Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study can be found in Appendix B.

Discharge into a surface water body

The site is adjacent to the River Tame, just downstream of the Lea Masterton weir. The river at this location has a concrete bank with a concrete path running adjacent. The topographical survey has recorded the water level at a level of 66.66mAOD, approximately 2.5m below site level. Though the water level can change depending on the weir control, the level difference is deemed suitable to allow for a gravity connection from the site to the river without having a submerged outlet. This will require the construction of a new outfall headwall through the concrete embankment. The discharge arrangement will be subject to approval by the LLFA and the EA. On this basis discharge to a surface body is deemed suitable and is the proposed form of discharge for this development.

Discharge into a surface water public sewer

This option is deemed unfeasible for this site due to the lack of a nearby sewer.

Discharge into a combined sewer

This option is deemed unfeasible for this site due to the lack of a nearby sewer.

071300-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002 WARWICK FIRE STATIONS: LEA MARSTON DEPOT

Drainage Strategy

Drainage1.3 StrategyProposed Surface Water Design

Water Quantity

The proposed development is over an existing grassed area with no impervious surfaces. The proposed

layout introduces approximately 0.212ha of new impermeable surface. It is proposed to limit the discharge of surface water to match the greenfield run-off rate. Using the HR Wallingford Greenfield Run-Off Rate Online Estimation Tool gives a rate of 1.4l/s. The greenfield run-off calculations can be

found in Appendix D.

As the greenfield run-off rate is very small a discharge rate of 2l/s is proposed to be used. This is in line with the Rainfall Runoff Management for Developments Report, reference CS030219 and the Flood Risk Management Pre-Application Advice Meeting Report, reference PRE000023 produced by Warwickshire County Council, which states that in an event of a low greenfield run-off rate a flow control with a minimum of 50mm opening should be used (noted under the advice for Kingsbury). It is proposed to provide a flow control device and surface water attenuation storage to allow for this discharge rate to be achieved.

The detailed drainage design must present information to satisfy the conditions set out by the LLFA and must be provided prior to the completion of the development. This version of the report and supporting documents aims to satisfy these conditions. Further consultation will be required with the Environment Agency to confirm acceptance of the drainage design and attain the required permits.

The LLFA planning conditions letter can be found in Appendix E.

The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Warwickshire County Council (WCC) requires that the drainage design accommodates the 1 in 100 years storm event with a 30% allowance for climate change. The MicroDrainage Network Module has been used to establish the overall attenuation volume required for the 100 years plus 30% climate change storm event for the developed area. The total proposed impermeable area on site is approximately 0.212ha. The required attenuation volume has been calculated to be approximately 135.0m3 and is to be accommodated in an underground attenuation tank.

Additional to the surface water run-off from site, the drainage strategy also accounts for the volume of water which is to be discharged on site as part of fire training drills. This water will become contaminated during the drills and is not to be discharged to the surface water system. This water will be collected via a channel drain around the perimeter of the training building and discharged to a holding tank. This ‘firewater’ will be collected from site and disposed of in accordance with the Fire-Services operating procedures. The volume of the firewater holding tank will be confirmed subject to further information regarding operational frequency of the facility.

In the period outside of drills the discharge from the channel drain around the building will be directed to the surface water system via a manually operated stop-valve at the manhole directly upstream of the firewater tank. This surface water is considered clean and will be directed to the attenuation tank.

The surface water drainage layout is included in Appendix G.

071300-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002 WARWICK FIRE STATIONS: LEA MARSTON DEPOT

Drainage Strategy

DrainageWater StrategyQuality

The new SUDS Manual (CIRIA C753, November 2015) introduced a slightly different approach compared to the previous version for the water quality management of surface water. The manual describes risks posed by the surface water runoff to the receiving environment as a function of:

• The pollution hazard at a particular site (i.e. the pollution source);

• The effectiveness of the SUDS treatment components in reducing levels of pollutants to

environmentally acceptable levels (i.e. the pollutant pathway); and,

• The sensitivity of the receiving environment (the environmental receptor).

In accordance with the SUDS Manual, the site is classified as presenting a low pollutant hazard level in vehicular areas and building roofs. In order to ensure water quality improvement into the surface water sewer system, a combination of filter drains and swales are proposed. These measures will help treat runoff from the hardstanding area.

Tables of the ‘Pollution hazard indices for different land use classifications’ (CIRIA 753: Table 26.2) demonstrate that the pollutants introduced via the car parking areas and access roads will be mitigated by the ‘Indicative SuDS mitigation indices for discharges to surface waters/groundwater’ (CIRIA 753: Table 26.3 & 26.4 respectively). Extracts of the aforementioned tables are shown below.

Total suspended Metals Hydrocarbons solids Pollutant hazard index – non-residential 0.5 0.4 0.4 car parking with infrequent change

Pollutant hazard index – roofs (typically 0.3 0.2 0.05 commercial/industrial roofs)

Permeable Pavements-SuDS mitigation 0.7 0.6 0.7 indices for discharge to surface waters Swales 0.5 0.6 0.6 Filter Drains 0.4 0.4 0.4

As per the CIRIA Manual 2015, each of the mitigation indices for each individual component must be higher than the pollutant hazard index for that component. The proposed level of treatment of surface water from the car parks, roofs and access road meets this requirement.

Additionally, the proposed filter-drain and swale will help reduce the silt entering the drainage system prior to entering the flow control manhole. A catchpit located at the inlet of the attenuation tank, is to be regularly maintained to further reduce the amount of silt entering the system. Finally a by-pass oil separator will be positioned at the very downstream end of the surface water system to catch any possible pollutants from oil spillages or similar before the water discharges to the river.

We note the LLFA’s requirement for the use of over ground attenuation features to be prioritised to underground attenuation tanks, however, the confined space on site and the large attenuation volume requirements make the use of large over ground attenuation storage features unfeasible.

071300-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002 WARWICK FIRE STATIONS: LEA MARSTON DEPOT

Drainage Strategy

Drainage Strategy 2.0 Foul Water

The foul water discharge from the new welfare building is proposed to be treated on site via a package treatment plant. Discharge from the welfare building will be domestic in nature and there will be sampling

points upstream and downstream of the treatment plant. The treated foul water is proposed to be discharged to the surface water system before discharging to the River Tame. The specification of the package treatment plant will require consultation and approval from the Environment Agency.

3.0 Appendices

Appendix A Site Location and Proposed Layout

Appendix B Extracts from the Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Report

Appendix C Survey

Appendix D Greenfield Run-Off Rate

Appendix E LLFA Planning Conditions

Appendix F MicroDrainage Calculations

Appendix G Drainage Layout

Appendix A Site Location and Proposed Layout

Printed or electronic copies of this drawing can be scaled for planning purposes only. Any discrepancies with this drawing to be reported and clarified prior to commencing Works work on site, if in doubt - Ask. Corporate Architecture Ltd accept no responsibility for works not undertaken fully in accordance with this drawing and relevant specifications. Copyright © Corporate Architecture Limited North point:

Notes:

Works

Track

masonry Sloping

Sloping masonry

Weir

masonry FB Sloping

Revision Log: Location Plan 1:1250 Track

0 12.5m 25m 37.5m 50m 62.5m 75m 1:1250 C Redline Updated DJG 03.08.20 Sloping masonry B Current Site Location Added DJG 03.11.19 A Current Site Location Added DJG 01.08.19 Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2019. All Rev: Description: By: Date: rights reserved. Licence number 100022432 Project: Warwickshire Fire & Rescue - Marston Lea Depot, Coton Road, lea marston, Warwickshire, B76 0DN

Sloping masonry Client: Gleeds Weir

Scale: Sloping masonry 1:500 1:1250

Drawn by: Checked: Date: Paper Size: DC MVFA May 2019 A1

Drawing Title: Weir Site & Location Plans

Drawing Status: PLANNING ISSUE

Drawing Number: Revision Number: 4854/GD/19/001 C FB

Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2019. All CORPORATE ARCHITECTURE LIMITED rights reserved. Licence number 100022432 CHARTERED ARCHITECTS HEAD OFFICE Venari House, 1 Trimbush Way, Market Harborough, Leicestershire, LE16 7XY Tel: 01858 467476 Site Plan 1:500 [email protected] www.corporatearchitecture.co.uk 0 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 1:500 existing Public Right

Approx Line of

of Way GA Site Plan

Line of possible

Way subject to

Public Right of

diversion to

discussion

further

69.500

STK1

Concrete Edge Concrete

Gate

Concrete Edge Concrete New 2.5 M High Solid Fence Solid High M 2.5 New

Security Fence

New 2.0 MTelehandler High Security Fence

69.08

Concrete Edge Concrete Bridge

Space

Sliding Gates Wall

Barrier

Wall

Wall post

Wood

Store 3M

agreed. Water Tank, If required,

size and location to be Wall

Skip

Existing Concrete Road *

Line of possible diversion to Public Right

post STK2

of Way subject to further discussion

Hydrant Position to be

agreed STK1

Barrier

3,750 6,000 New 2.0 M High Security Fence Wall

10.5 x 2.9m fire

Wall

appliance

appliance post

Hardstanding Drain To Perimeter

Hardstanding

New 2.5 M High Solid Fence

68.678 Minerva

Water Edge Water STK2 post

Barrier

Water Edge

10.5 x 2.9m fire

appliance

Top Of Bank Of Top Landscape post

Trees to be removed

Line of possible

Way subject to

Public Right of

diversion to

discussion

Scrub Edge Scrub post further

Top of Bank

Barrier post

existing Public Right

Approx Line of

of Way

5M 10M

post Scrub Edge Scrub

1:200

Scrub Edge Scrub Scrub Edge Scrub Rev: Revision Log: Rev E Drawing Number: Drawing Status: Drawing Title: Drawn by: Project: Notes: North point: Client: Scale: works not undertaken fully in accordance with this drawing drawing to be reported and clarified prior commencing 0 Lea Marston, New Training Facility for Warwickshire Fire Service Marston Lea Depot, Coton Road, Warwickshire County Council Warwickshire Fire Service Warwick B76 0DN Printed or electronic copies of this drawing can be scaled DJG Corporate Architecture Ltd accept no responsibility for for planning purposes only. Any discrepancies with this 2.5m CORPORATE ARCHITECTURE LIMITED Description: Site amended to suit Client Comments

Legend 4854/G/19/003 5m CHARTERED ARCHITECTS Checked: [email protected] Copyright © Corporate Architecture Limited www.corporatearchitecture.co.uk PLANNING ISSUE Venari House, 1 Trimbush Way, Proposed Site Plan 7.5m Leicestershire, LE16 7XY - Market Harborough, Tel: 01858 467476

Existing Trees

Trees to be removed HEAD OFFICE 10m Date: 12.5m work on site, if in doubt - Ask. and relevant specifications. Aug 19 NORTH 15m 1:250 Revision Number: DJG Paper Size: By: A1 E Date: 03.09.20

Appendix B Extract of Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Report

Minerva, Warwickshire Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Desk Study Report

Final Report

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited – November 2019

2 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Copyright and non-disclosure notice Report for The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Samveer Thiara Solutions UK Limited 2019) save to the extent that copyright Warwickshire County Council has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Strategic Assets Governance and Policy Wood under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright Warwickshire County Council in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior Shire Hall written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose Warwick indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in CV34 4SA this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be

disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may Main contributors otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any Laura Eardley event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Chris Johnson Karen Sagar (Geotechnical Review) Third party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this Issued by disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of ...... this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for Gareth Shaw personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. Approved by

Management systems

This document has been produced by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited in full compliance with our ...... management systems, which have been certified to ISO 9001, Ian Evans ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 by LRQA.

Wood Document revisions Nicholls House No. Details Date Homer Close Leamington Spa 1 Draft Report 42234-WOOD-XX- November Warwickshire CV34 6TT XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 2019 United Kingdom Tel +44 (0) 1926 439 000 2 Final Report November

2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 3 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Executive summary

Background Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Ltd (Wood) was commissioned by Warwickshire County Council (WCC) to prepare a Phase 1 Geoenvironmental (Geotechnical and Contaminated Land) report in relation to the proposed development of the Minerva Site in Lea Marston, Kingsbury, Warwickshire (the site). The proposed site development will comprise construction a training unit, a cold smoke house and a welfare block with associated hardstanding.

Purpose of the report This report has been produced for the purpose of informing and detailed design a full outline planning application for the development of the site.

Site description The site covers an area of approximately 1.2 hectares and is predominately undeveloped grassland/scrubland with some semi-mature woodland along the western perimeters. A concrete slab access route follows the south east and western limits of the site providing access to the existing fire training area immediately adjacent to the west of the site. The site generally slopes gently downward towards the north east towards the adjacent River Tame, which is located in a concrete channel along the eastern site boundary.

Site history As of earliest mapping (1886), the site comprised agricultural land with a pond situated in the east of the site (as of 1924 the site is mapped as liable to flood). The pond was absent by 1989. A depression is shown in the south west of site, recorded as a gravel pit as of 1901. By 1968 the gravel pit is absent. Marshland is also shown on site as of 1902 mapping. The site shows little change between 1989 and 2019.

Ground Conditions and Superficial deposits comprising River Terrace Deposits (sand and gravel) underlie the majority of the Site sensitivity site, with a narrow band of Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel) mapped bordering the River Tame along the eastern site boundary. The solid geology underlying the whole site is the Sidmouth Mudstone Formation (mudstones and siltstones), part of the Mercia Mudstone Group. Made Ground is likely to be present across the site associated with the historical infilled pond and gravel pit , as well as more recent development around the site perimeter. The thickness, extent and characteristics of Made Ground is unknown and may significantly vary across the site. The groundwater sensitivity is assessed as moderate - the site is underlain by Secondary A aquifers for the Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits. The underlying bedrock, Sidmouth Mudstone Formation, is classified as a Secondary B aquifer. The site does not lie within a source protection zone (SPZ). There are no groundwater abstractions within 2 km of the site. The surface water sensitivity is assessed as high given the close proximity of the River Tame to site, adjacent to the eastern site boundary as well as the presence of contamination sources including landfills both on and off site, and the presence of an infilled gravel pit on site and infilled ponds on and off site. There is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Whitacre Heath, located approximately 450 m to the south from the closest site border. The ecological sensitivity is assessed as moderate to low.

Findings of previous Wood has not been made aware of any previous ground investigations undertaken at the site. investigations Conclusions Environmental: Moderate and high risks have been identified to future site users. These relate to asbestos, metals, hydrocarbons in shallow soil in soft landscaped area as well as volatile contaminants and ground gas due to the lack of data relating Made Ground and infill materials both on and off site. Moderate risks to surface waters (River Tame) have been noted relating to the Made Ground/ infilled land on site for which composition is unknown with potential for widespread contamination and leaching potential from on site soils into the adjacent river. Moderate risks to groundwater sources in the underlying superficial and bedrock strata have been identified though sub-surface migration and leaching of potential contaminants. The sources relate to Made Ground/land fill material of unknown composition as well as off site tanks of unknown condition with potential for soil leaching from both on-site soils and off-site migration of contaminated groundwater and free phase hydrocarbons migrating onto the site. Moderate risks have been identified relating to buildings and services through damage to property associated with potential gassing conditions from Made Ground on site. Geotechnical: Ground stability risks on site are reported as negligible to low with the exception of compressible ground stability hazards reported from negligible to moderate risk within the Groundsure Report.

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 4 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

The presence of Alluvium and Made Ground (primarily associated with the infilled pond), are likely to preclude the use of conventional shallow foundations due to potentially low bearing capacity, differential settlement and variable ground conditions, and hence deeper foundations, into the Sidmouth Mudstone Formation or River Terrace Gravels, made be required. Shallow groundwater may be present at the site, and foundation design should consider the risk from uplift, and reduced bearing capacity in granular soils, as well as the implications for temporary excavations etc. Mitigation measures should be identified and considered in both the design and construction process of all foundations, substructure and ground works. In addition, a monitoring strategy including baseline monitoring and an emergency plan should be developed in consultation with all affected parties and implemented during construction. It is recommended that approval should be obtained from the service authorities prior to the construction.

Recommendations An intrusive ground investigation is required to better determine geoenvironmental constraints to development of the site.

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 5 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Contents

1. Introduction 7

2. Site details and environmental context 9 2.1 Site details 9 2.1 Site history 11 2.2 Environmental context 13 2.3 Other regulatory database information 15 2.4 Previous work at the site 16

3. Generic quantitative risk assessment – human health 17 3.1 Conceptual model 17 3.2 Potential contamination (sources) 17 3.3 Potential receptors and exposure pathways 18 3.4 Exclusion from risk assessment 18 3.4.1 Redevelopment workers 18 3.4.2 Invasive species 18 3.4.3 Unexploded ordnance (UXO) 18 3.5 Preliminary risk assessment 19

4. Geotechnical Considerations 27 4.1 Anticipated Ground Conditions 27 4.2 Ground Stability 27 4.3 Existing Retaining Structures 28 4.4 Services 28 4.5 Foundations 28 4.6 Excavations & Obstructions 29 4.7 Impact Assessment 29

5. Conclusions and recommendations 30 5.1 Conclusions 30 5.1.1 Environmental 30 5.1.2 Geotechnical 30 5.2 Recommendations 31

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 6 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 3.1 Current and historical contaminant sources 17 Table 3.2 Receptors and Exposure Pathways 18 Table 3.2 Preliminary Risk Assessment – Risks to future site users and environment from current/historic sources 20

Figure Appendix A Groundsure report Appendix B Site walkover photographs Appendix C Selected BGS borehole logs Appendix D Zetica UXO assessment Appendix E Preliminary environmental risk assessment and conceptual site model methodology Appendix F Geotechnical Risk Register

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 7 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

1. Introduction

Background Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Ltd (Wood) was commissioned by Warwickshire County Council (WCC) to prepare a Phase 1 geoenvironmental (Contaminated Land and geotechnical) Desk Study for the proposed development of the Minerva Site in Lea Marston, Kingsbury, Warwickshire (the site). The proposed site development will comprise construction of a training unit building, a cold smoke house and a welfare block with associated hardstanding.

Purpose of the Report This report has been completed in line with Wood’s proposal referenced 42234-00 dated September 2019. The purpose of the report is to assist in identifying potential geoenvironmental constraints associated with development of the site, in support of an outline planning application for development of the site.

Scope of work The scope of work comprises: • Reviewing local geological, hydrogeological and hydrological maps to assess the likely ground and groundwater conditions at the site; • Where provided, review previous ground investigations and geoenvironmental reports relating to the site and adjacent land; • Reviewing a range of contemporary environmental data including historical land use and environmental setting information from a number of sources; • Obtain additional information through accessing publicly available information; • Undertaking a site walkover; • Development of a Conceptual Model (CM) and preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment, in line with CLR11 to provide an assessment of the site’s potential contamination status and identify the presence of potentially significant contaminant linkages (source, pathways and receptors) that require further consideration; and • Complete an initial geotechnical assessment, inclusive of a geotechnical risk register, highlighting potential geotechnical issues and constraints (development abnormals).

Regulatory Context Development of the site is controlled under the Planning Regime. Planning guidance relating to the development of land potentially affected by contamination is detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) June 2019 and constitutes guidance for Local Planning Authorities (LPA). In this case the LPA is Warwickshire County Council (WCC).

The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The NPPF states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs and support appropriate opportunities should be supported to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land.

Therefore, planning policies and decision should ensure that: • A site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. This includes risks arising from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation (as well as potential impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation). • After remediation, as a minimum, land should be capable of not being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and • Adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is available to inform these assessments.

The statutory definition of contaminated land is given under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (Part 2A). This does not include land that is already regulated through other means, such as Waste Management Legislation or the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

In addition, the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 8 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Information Sources The following sources of information have been used in the preparation of this report, and should be read in conjunction with this report: GroundSure report (GS-6323184, GS-6323185 & GS-6323186), September 2019 (Appendix A). Please note the site boundary defined on the Groundsure report does not relate to the current planning application boundary. A plan detailing the planning boundary is shown in section 3.1.; British Geological Survey Geoindex webpage (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex); Zetica Unexploded Ordnance Risk Map; (https://zeticauxo.com/); Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, online mapping database (https://magic.defra.gov.uk); and Tame Valley Wetlands – Lea Marston Lakes (http://www.tamevalleywetlands.co.uk/lea-marston- lakes/)

Limitations The conclusions reached and advice given in this report are based in part upon information and/or documents that have been prepared by third parties. In view of this, we accept no responsibility or liability of any kind in relation to such third party information and no representation, warranty or undertaking of any kind, express or implied, is made with respect to the completeness, accuracy or adequacy of such third party information. In preparing this report we have assumed that all information provided by the Client is complete, accurate and not misleading.

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 9 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

2. Site details and environmental context

2.1 Site details

Grid 420758, 293805 Reference

Site Minerva Site, Lane off Birmingham Road, Lea Marston, North Warwickshire. Nearest Postcode: B76 0BW Address

Site The site location is shown in the below Figure, exctracted from the Groundsure report (Appendix A). Location

= Original planning application boundary

= Current (revised) planning application boundary

Figure not to scale

Extract from Groundsure report reference: GS - 6323184, GS - 6323185 & GS-6323186 (see Appendix A)

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 10 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Grid 420758, 293805 Reference

Site The site covers an area of approximately 1.2 hectares and is predominately undeveloped grassland/scrubland with Description some semi-mature woodland along the western perimeter. Site photographs obtained during the walkover are included in Appendix B and referenced through the text. A concrete slab access route follows the south east and western limits of the site (see photographs 2 6 & 8 in Appendix B) providing access to the existing fire training area immediately adjacent to the west of the site.

The site is relatively flat and slopes gently downward towards the north east towards the adjacent River Tame. The highest elevated part of the site is the south western corner at approximately 72 m above ordnance datum (AOD). The river channel adjacent to the site is confined by the vertical walls of a concrete earth-retaining structure in the south eastern corner (see photograph 8 in Appendix B). The channel then flows over a weir structure (approximately 2-3 m below existing ground level) and along a concrete-lined section of riverbank, the banks of which are inclined at approximately 30-40°.

Boundaries Direction Adjacent Beyond (within 200 m) (Land uses and relevant features)

North Open grassland with some semi-mature trees Grassed storage area

East River Tame (see photograph 8 in Appendix B) River Tame/ wetland associated with River Tame

West Existing concreted storage area/ grassland with some Grassland with some mature trees mature trees (see photograph 4 in Appendix B)

South Open grassland with some mature trees/ River Tame Open grassland with some mature trees/ River Tame

Site The site walkover was carried out by a Wood engineer on 25 October 2019. The site was accessed via a controlled Walkover gate for the entrance to the Environment Agency offices. The site lies within the Kingsbury Water Park adjacent to the River Tame which stretches north/north west of the site. The section of the River Tame adjacent to the east of the site also comprises part of the Lea Marston Lakes and forms “a series of three purification lakes created by the Environment Agency (EA) from former gravel extraction pits. There is a concrete access track which runs along the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the site, the remainder of the site is soft landscaping comprising of grass with some saplings and semi-mature trees along the western boundary and scattered across the remainder of the site.

The area surrounding the site was predominately also grass with some mature trees, an Environment Agency storage facility is located to the west of the site which comprises a steel framed warehouse. To the east was a water control system for the River Tame, which comprises of a weir and waste collection from the watercourse.

Services Services information has been determined based on observations made during the site reconnaissance visit and service plans viewed onsite. Services noted on the drawings include a 400V electricity cable along the western and southern boundary for the upstream monitoring station, a discharge pipe from the grit drying beds to the west of the site which runs beneath the northern boundary of the site before discharging into the River Tame, this also had a control panel beneath a concrete plinth with metal covers on the northern boundary. An approximately 400 mm diameter pipe for ‘AC Fly Ash Main’ crosses the western half of the site in a north to south orientation. There is a further service recorded on site plans marked through the centre of the site in a north to south orientation, but the type is not labelled. The only services noted above ground were low level lighting columns for the pathway.

It is not known, however, whether any redundant / decommissioned pipes or other services exist at the site.

Proposed It is understood that WCC intends to take the site forward for development of a fire training facility. The facility is Developme proposed to comprise three buildings including a training unit and a cold smoke house. A welfare block with nt associated hardstanding will also be constructed. The proposed site master plan has been included as Figure 1.

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 11 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

2.1 Site history

A summary of the historical development of the site, based on information provided in the Groundsure report, is presented below and the Groundsure report is provided in Appendix A.

The red site boundary on the map extracts below represents the approximate extent of the site boundary for the current development. The maps shown comprise extracts from the Groundsure report (Appendix A).

Onsite: The site comprises a pond/surface water feature surrounded by agricultural land.

Off-site: The River Tame is present to the south east of the site. A large elongated pond, possibly part of a former meander, is present 100 m north east of the site. A track/path follows the western site perimeter leading north east/south west. The surrounding area is dominated by fields with a cluster of buildings associated with Lea Farm located some 500 m south west of site. A spring is also recorded some 250 m north of the site.

Not to scale Extract from 1886 mapping. (Appendix A)

On-Site: A gravel pit is shown in the south west of site.

Off-Site: No obvious changes from previous mapping.

Not to scale

Extract from 1901-1902 mapping. (Appendix A)

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 12 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

On Site: The site is noted to be liable to flood. A depression is shown in the south west of site.

Off-Site: The Kingsbury and Water Orton railway line is located approximately 400 m south east of the site and runs north east to south west.

Not to scale

On Site: The gravel pit is no longer indicated.

Off site : No obvious changes from previous mapping.

Extract from 1965-1968 mapping (Appendix A)

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 13 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

On Site: 1989/1990 mapping shows the site now bound by a well-established access road to an adjacent structure on the western limits of the site. A line of non-coniferous trees lines the western edge of the site. The site shows little to no change between 1989 and 2019.

Off-Site: The River Tame to the east/south east of the site has a system of tracks, bridges and weirs present. The river system to the north east of the site is now also much wider forming a lake with a thin island of vegetation passing up through the centre of the lake. Two large tanks are recorded adjacent to the west of the site where a ‘works’ is now recorded as well as a further two tanks and electricity substation to the north west of the site. A number of disused 0.25km quarries (now infilled with water) are recorded between 350- 500 m west/north west of the site as of 1989 mapping.

Extract from 1989-1990 mapping (Appendix A)

Site history summary and pertinent features From earliest mapping the site comprised agricultural land with a pond situated in the east. This pond was absent by 1989. gravel pit is shown in 1901. By 1968 the gravel pit is absent. The site shows little to no change between 1989 and 2019.

The River Tame has remained present close to the eastern site perimeter although its route has been channelised with the construction of the Lea Marston Lakes

The Kingsbury and Water Orton Railway Line was present 400 m south east of the site from 1924.

2.2 Environmental context

Geology Information taken from BGS mapping website (http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html), , previous reports and the Groundsure report included in Appendix A.

Superficials: Superficial strata on site comprises Alluvium (typically comprising clay, silt, sand and gravels) along the eastern limits of the site with the majority of the site overlain by River Terrace Deposis (sand and gravels).

Bedrock: Bedrock strata across the site comprises mudstone of the Sidmouth Mudstone Formation.

There are six historic BGS boreholes within 1 km of the site; three of these boreholes, SP29SW248, 249 & 250, lying approximately 600 m northwest of the site are confidential/restricted. Two further holes, SP29SW187 & 188, are recorded approximately 800 m east and south respectively, although these records are blank. Borehole SP29SW27 is located approximately 900 m southwest of the site; it shows topsoil overlying Made Ground comprising soft to firm sandy SILT to 6.40 m depth, underlain by Boulder Clay described as ‘compact, friable reddish brown/grey mottled clayey SILT’ to 9.00 m depth. The borehole does not intercept Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits or the Sidmouth Mudstone Formation, and a copy is included in Appendix C for completeness.

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 14 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Strata Brief Description of typical Aquifer and approximate water Notable features constituents level if known*

Made Ground Unknown composition Unknown Made Ground of is anticipated on site related to areas of infilling.

Topsoil Unknown

Alluvium Clay, silt, sand and gravel. Secondary A Predominantly along the eastern Organic deposits may also be perimeter of site associated with the present typically comprising River Tame network. peat and detrital material deposited by a river.

River Terrace Sand and gravels Secondary A Deposits

Sidmouth Typically comprising mudstone Secondary B Mudstone and siltstone Formation

Radon The site is not in a Radon Affected Area, as less than 1% of properties are above the Action Level. No radon Potential protective measures are necessary.

Coal Mining The site is not recorded within a coal mining reporting area, however a coal mining area is recorded in the Groundsure report some 300 m north east of the site.

Hydrogeologic There are two aquifer systems underlying the site. The upper aquifer in the River Terrace Gravels which is a al sensitivity1 secondary A aquifer and the lower bedrock aquifer within the Sidmouth Mudstone Formation classified as a Secondary B aquifer. There is no publically available groundwater is a depth information available for the site or in the near vicinity (within 1 km). Groundwater flow is anticipated to be toward the River Tame in the east. There are no groundwater abstractions recorded within 2 km of the site.

The site does not lie within a source protection zone (SPZ) and none are recorded within 500 m of the site.

Groundwater The groundwater sensivity has been based on The Guidance for the Safe Development of Housing on Land Sensitivity Affected by Contamination R&D66: 2008 2.

Superifical and Bedrock Aquifers – Moderate This reflects the superificial Secondary A Aquifer and bedrock Secondary B Aquifer classifications but also accounts for the lack of source protection zones in the vicinity.

Hydrology The River Tame (lake and river) lies less than 5m south east at its closest point from the siteand follows the eastern site perimeter.

Hydrological High sensitivity considering distance to the River Tame as well as the presence of contamination sources sensitivity including landfills both on and off site, and the presence of an infilled gravel pit on site and infilled ponds on and off site.

Flood Risk Based on the Groundsure report the site has a risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea (RoFRaS) Flood Rating of ‘‘High’ risk (1 in 30 or greater chance).

The site is within a Zone 2 River and Coastal Flood Zone. Zone 2 floodplains have an estimated annual probability of flooding between 1 in 1000 (0.1%) and 1 in 100 (1%) from rivers and between 1 in 1000 (0.1%) and 1 in 200 (0.5%) from the sea.

1 Private water supplies are not included in the database and as such are not considered within the risk assessment, however, there remains the potential for risks to private water supplies 2 NHBC/ CIEH / Environment Agency, Guidance for the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination R&D66: 2008

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 15 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Ecology There is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Whitacre Heath, located 455 m south of the site. The site is located within the impact risk zone for this SSSI3. An ancient woodland site, Sych Wood lies 805 m south west of the site. The site lies within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone for surface waters (River Trent)4. Birmingham Greenbelt areas are recorded both on site and 725 m west.

The Tame Valley Wetlands website notes that Lea Marston Lakes are of regional significance for winter wildfowl populations.

Ecological The ecological sensitivity is assessed as Moderate to Low as there is a SSSI 455 m from the site but the strata may sensitivity have a limiting factor on groundwater migration.

2.3 Other regulatory database information

Only regulatory data within 250 m with the potential to impact the site has been detailed below, please refer to Appendix A for the complete regulatory data set.

Activity On- 0-250 m Details Site

Waste management/ 0 0 The closest waste facility is situated approximately 310 m north west of the transfer/ treatment site. facilities/disposal

Landfill 1 2 Historic landfills within 250 m include ARC Lea Marston on site (north) which operated between 1978 and 1984, CEGB Site No.2 (40 m west) operated between 1977 and 1988 and River Tame Purification Lake (80 m west) operated from 1982 (end date not recorded).

Extract from Groundsure report (see appendix A)

3 www.magic.gov.uk 4 Environment Agency-”what’s in your backyard?” http://maps.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?value=MK56AA&lang=_e&ep=map&topic=groundwater&layerGroups=default&scale=9&textonl y=off&submit.x=12&submit.y=10#x=480219&y=230408&lg=1,3,10,&scale=6

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1 16 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Activity On- 0-250 m Details Site

Current industrial site 0 7 The nearest industrial feature to site is an unspecified works/factory 90 m north west of the site. In addition, six generic tanks have been identified between 145 m and 200 m north of the site.

The two tanks adjacent to the west of the site were noted in plans on site as being grit drying beds.

Potentially contaminative 0 8 Four pits (including one specified as a gravel pit) are recorded between 20- site uses (data extracted 25 m from the site between 1886 and 1954. These pits correlate with quarries from standard 1:10,560 visible on current mapping of the site. Two unspecified works are shown up to and 1:10,000 scale 110 m from the site in 1989 mapping, one which borders the west of the site. historical maps) Two unspecified tanks are recorded up to 5 m west of the site in 1989 mapping and appear to be associated with the locations of unspecified works in the vicinity.

Electricity substations 0 2 Two electricity substations are recorded within 250 m north of the site

Potentially infilled land 2 6 Infilled ponds/water bodies and a former quarry are recorded on site (with multiple dated entries) and further records within 100 m of the site predominantly to the northeast/north west dating between 1886 and 1989.

Recorded pollution 0 1 A pollution incident to the River Tame 35 m south east of site was recorded in incidents June 2010 associated with urban run-off of contaminated water (significant Category Impact 2 to water). The location of the incident is downgradient of the site.

Unexploded Ordnance and - - Low Risk. See stand-alone UXO assessment by Zetica (Appendix D). Bomb Strikes

2.4 Previous work at the site

Wood are not aware of any previous works undertaken at the site and no previous reports have been provided by WCC .

November 2019 Doc Ref. 42234-WOOD-XX-XX-FG-OE-0011_S0_P01.1

Appendix C Survey

Trig Pillar Lamp Post Electric Post Water Meter Gas Valve Sign Post Post Flag Staff Pipe Invert Gully Gas Marker Bellisha Beacon Ridge Level Eave Level Soffit Level Control Box Telegraph Post Rodding Point Bt Cover Cover Unknown Electricity Cover Fire Hydrant Earthing Rod Traffic Light Peg Dpc Level Floor Level Gas Cover Stop Valve Tv Cover Bollard Bus Stop Post Box Mile Stone post Mrk GU SP EP TP invt Soff T/Bo LP FS RP Trig bol Ridg Eave peg DPC GV BT BB GAS Box CO EC FL ER FH SV TV WM BS TL MS DD/A0 19297-19-01B Drawn/Paper Size Drawing No LE65 1AP SURVEYING [email protected] WOOD PLC Survey Station & Name Security Fence Bench Mark Panel Fence Open Fence Overhead Powerline Building Canopy / Overhang Centre Line Chambers Bench Mark Tree / Sapling Area Of Undergrowth Gate Buildings / walls Kerb line Concrete edge Barrier Temporary Hedge Inspection chamber Cover level Invert level Pipe invert (diameter) Gully Back Gully Manhole Tel 01530 560837 DO NOT SCALE SITE SURVEY www.svsurveying.co.uk Fax 01530 560123 LEICESTERSHIRE MINERVA SITE TOPOGRAPHIC 76B MARKET STREET ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH SAP Email: (c) Copyright SV Surveying Ltd 2019. BUILDING SURVEYS + SITE ENGINEERING SV SURVEYING LTD LAND SURVEYS + COMPUTER MODELLING STN1 100.00 100.00 IC CL IL Inv Ø0.25 Gy Bg MH 1:200 15/10/2019 Legend: BM TBM All dimensions / levels should be checked on site prior to from ground level and therefore should be treated as This plan should only be used for its original purpose. SV Tree information (where applicable) has been surveyed The survey has been fixed to GPS OSGB 1936 using the supplied to any other party other than the original client. design and construction. approximate only. approximate only. active GPS network. Surveying Ltd accepts no responsibility for this plan if Contours are drawn at 0.2m intervals inspected from the surface and should be treated as Notes : Drainage information (where applicable) has been visually Drawing Scales Project Survey Date 420760E 420780E 420800E 420820E 420700E 420720E 420740E 420680E

293900N 293900N

69.46

69.32

69.37 68.94

69.45

Concrete Edge

Wall

69.36 69.10 69.16 69.23

293880N 69.74 Scrub Edge 293880N

69.02 68.94 69.00 69.45

68.95 68.85

Concrete Edge 69.29

68.97 Scrub Edge

69.46 69.49 Post & Wire 68.80

69.24 Post & Wire 69.06 68.95 69.00 66.71 69.71 69.16 67.99 69.07 69.24

Scrub Edge 69.58 69.01 67.74 66.86

Scrub Edge post

Barrier 293860N 69.62 293860N 69.31 68.14

68.87

Wall 68.17

68.11

Scrub Edge

69.37 68.91

69.21 69.16 68.28 post

Concrete Edge 69.37 68.24 69.08

69.71 68.17 67.18 Scrub Edge 68.06 69.14

69.75

69.75 68.95 Barrier

69.85 69.34 post 68.99 69.43 69.37 68.47

68.50 68.34 68.26 67.38

293840N 69.33 Scrub Edge 293840N

69.95 69.31

69.40 post 69.34

Track 69.95 68.51 69.20 68.65 Scrub Edge 69.44 69.45

70.05 69.06 69.84 69.31 69.04 69.92 68.90 70.0

69.05 10M 68.63 Concrete Edge 5M post 68.68 69.16

69.64 69.29

70.11

Concrete Edge Scrub Edge 69.29 Track Scrub Edge 70.05 Barrier

Scrub Edge

69.25 69.71 68.64

68.54

70.00

68.96 post 68.58 69.52 69.09 68.62 293820N 68.52 293820N 68.52

70.11

70.10 Scrub Edge 69.76 69.28 68.93 69.76 Scrub Edge

Barrier 68.90 Top of Bank 70.13

68.67 70.13 69.51 68.77 69.11 68.53 69.71

70.19 68.51 68.51

Scrub Edge

69.38 68.96 post

Scrub Edge 70.15

68.72 5M 68.61

Concrete Edge 68.90 70.18 5M 69.56

70.28 69.09

Concrete Edge 68.56 post 68.73 68.63

70.20 69.26 68.53 70.20 69.81 69.38 69.26 68.94 68.52

70.34 293800N 293800N 68.85 69.27 69.68

69.47 68.73 Barrier 68.63 69.31 70.20 post Top of Bank 70.24 Scrub Edge 69.53

70.35 68.61 69.31 70.22 Scrub Edge

68.57

69.94 68.55 68.94

69.29

.0 70 69.58

69.32

69.83 post

.39 68.74

68.64 70.16 68.53 70.20

Concrete Edge 69.26 68.86

70.26 69.32 68.98 68.77 69.94 66.57

Top Of Bank 70.12 68.73 Concrete Edge 68.86 post 68.63 70.38 68.58

69.58 68.54

Water Edge 293780N 68.53 293780N 68.90

68.88

70.26 68.75 69.37 66.56 68.53 70.24

66.55 70.10 68.73 69.95 69.49 68.63 68.58 post 69.64 68.53 68.50 70.35

68.96 Barrier 70.01 69.64 69.26

66.56

Top Of Bank Top Of Bank

68.54 69.45 68.77 68.54 68.85 Water Edge 70.25

68.57 69.62 69.54 post 66.57 70.27 69.71 68.91 70.34 Concrete Edge 69.93 69.66 70.01

69.40 68.87 66.56 Concrete Edge 70.0 69.11 68.54 70.16 69.51 68.84 68.76 68.51 3M 68.66 70.24 68.85 68.60 69.75

post 70.32 69.84 Barrier Water Edge 66.56 293760N 70.33 68.73 293760N 68.66 70.09 Top Of Bank

68.51

Top Of Bank 69.47 69.18 68.52 70.25 68.71 68.60 Water Edge

68.88 post

66.56 69.88 68.54 70.12 70.34 70.30 66.56 68.71

68.64 Barrier

70.24 68.61 68.51 69.01 Concrete Edge 69.50 68.55 STK2 68.678 68.76 Water Edge post 70.33 70.22 68.67

66.56

70.27 Top Of Bank

.0 Concrete Edge 70 70.29 68.55 68.65 68.65 68.51 68.71 68.61 70.25 69.97 69.18

70.31

Water Edge

68.83 70.30 70.22 69.75 69.83 post Wall 293740N 68.67 293740N

70.34 Concrete Edge 68.56 66.58 68.66 69.49 68.88 68.61

70.25 68.77 Concrete Edge 70.20 70.16 Barrier 68.71

70.25

70.24 70.19 post 70.01 70.12

69.61 68.73 68.90 68.83 70.29 68.84 Wall 69.96 69.35 Concrete Edge 70.16 69.18 69.89 69.74 69.11 68.58

70.19 69.59 69.73 70.27 69.66 69.37

69.93 69.58 69.31 Wall STK1 420742.061 293721.619 69.500 70.01 69.51 69.23 69.12

68.71 STK2 420782.685 293749.755 68.678 69.54

69.64 69.17 Wall 69.27 69.72 69.40 STK1

69.500 Barrier Wall 69.50 69.53 69.35

293720N 69.40 293720N 69.41 69.36 69.71

69.27

69.25 69.78 69.33 69.28 69.75 69.65

Security Fence Wall Bridge

69.75 69.19 69.51 69.08 70.14 69.40 69 75 69.10 69.50 69.62 Gate

69.17 69.20 69.08 69.72 69.73 68.96 69.83 68.86

68.96

68.79 69.83 68.89

293700N 293700N 420680E 420820E 420800E 420780E 420760E 420740E 420720E 420700E

Appendix D Greenfield Run-Off Rate

Greenfield runoff rate estimation for sites www.uksuds.com | Greenfield runoff tool

Calculated by: Aidan Hogan Site Details Site name: Lea Marston Latitude: 52.54185° N Site location: Longitude: 1.69523° W This is an estimation of the greenfield runoff rates that are used to meet normal best practice criteria in line with Environment Agency guidance “Rainfall runoff management Reference: for developments”, SC030219 (2013) , the SuDS Manual C753 (Ciria, 2015) and 3023558765 the non-statutory standards for SuDS (Defra, 2015). This information on greenfield runoff rates may Date: be Sep 15 2020 12:29 the basis for setting consents for the drainage of surface water runoff from sites.

Runoff estimation approach IH124

Site characteristics Notes

Total site area (ha): 0.22 (1) Is QBAR < 2.0 l/s/ha? Methodology

When QBAR is < 2.0 l/s/ha then limiting discharge rates are set at QBAR estimation method: Calculate from SPR and SAAR 2.0 l/s/ha. SPR estimation method: Calculate from SOIL type Soil characteristics Default Edited (2) Are flow rates < 5.0 l/s? SOIL type: 3 3 HOST class: N/A N/A Where flow rates are less than 5.0 l/s consent for discharge is SPR/SPRHOST: 0.37 0.37 usually set at 5.0 l/s if blockage from vegetation and other materials is possible. Lower consent flow rates may be set where Hydrological characteristics the blockage risk is addressed by using appropriate drainage Default Edited elements. SAAR (mm): 654 654 (3) Is SPR/SPRHOST ≤ 0.3? Hydrological region: 4 4 Growth curve factor 1 year: 0.83 0.83 Where groundwater levels are low enough the use of soakaways Growth curve factor 30 years: to avoid discharge offsite would normally be preferred for 2 2 disposal of surface water runoff. Growth curve factor 100 years: 2.57 2.57 Growth curve factor 200 years: 3.04 3.04

Greenfield runoff rates Default Edited

QBAR (l/s): 0.58 0.58

1 in 1 year (l/s): 0.48 0.48 1 in 30 years (l/s): 1.17 1.17

1 in 100 year (l/s): 1.5 1.5

1 in 200 years (l/s): 1.77 1.77 This report was produced using the greenfield runoff tool developed by HR Wallingford and available at www.uksuds.com. The use of this tool is subject to the UK SuDS terms and conditions and licence agreement , which can both be found at www.uksuds.com/terms-and-conditions.htm. The outputs from this tool are estimates of greenfield runoff rates. The use of these results is the responsibility of the users of this tool. No liability will be accepted by HR Wallingford, the Environment Agency, CEH, Hydrosolutions or any other organisation for the use of this data in the design or operational characteristics of any drainage scheme.

Appendix E LLFA Advice Note

Warwickshire County Council Warwickshire County Council

Flood Risk Management Pre-Application Advice

Meeting

22/10/2019 Northgate House, Warwick

Ref. PRE000023

Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Training Facilities

Attendees Sophie Wynne Chris Grange Samveer Thiara Dan Bohane (via phone) Daniel Grimley (via phone)

1. Lea Marston • The site layout has been adjusted to move the majority of the buildings Fire House outside of fluvial flood zone 2, the LLFA would agree with this approach and ask that the relevant sequential test is included in the FRA. • The LLFA would expect to see a drainage strategy that deals with the surface water from the buildings and new hard surfaces separately from the fire training house. The water from the fire training house will be contaminated and not suitable for discharge to a surface water body. Firewater should be taken from the site via the foul network or tanker etc for treatment and safe disposal off site. Further guidance for the disposal of fire water is available from the following link: https://www.ukfrs.com/sites/default/files/2017- 09/Environment%20Agency%20and%20DCLG%20environmental%20hand book.pdf • The LLFA would accept bunding as suitable containment, however it must be demonstrated that the proposed bund can contain the required volume of water. • If the ‘Cold Smoke House’ can be demonstrated to be uncontaminated and will not spread any of the following pollutants from Table 1.1 on page 19 of the Environmental Handbook. In addition, the introduction of heated water can damage the water environment and as such it would need to be confirmed the ‘cold smoke’ would be created for visual effect only. • The remaining site drainage should be attenuated to greenfield rates as the site is currently undeveloped. The LLFA would accept source control SuDs for attenuation, the LLFA would not support the use of below ground crate storage tanks as they are difficult to monitor and maintain and do not provide multiple benefits. The LLFA will accept the SuDs manual hazard index approach to surface water treatment for this aspect of the site drainage. • The outfall for the site drainage from buildings and hardstanding should be outlined and shown to be as high on the drainage hierarchy as possible. If discharge to the adjacent River Tame is proposed, this should be discussed with the EA and an Environmental Permit may be required. The proposed outfall structure or final chamber before the outfall should have a pollution control measure that could contain any contaminated water that may enter the system. • The EA normally require an 8m easement to the main river to ensure maintenance access is maintained, this should be show on any submitted drawings. • The access and egress from the site is shown to be through fluvial flood zone 2. The flood zone anticipated depths should be hazard mapped in accordance with FD2320 to demonstrate the risk category to site users. • Any proposed level changes in fluvial flood zone 2 will require consultation with the EA in regards to floodplain compensation. 2. Kingsbury • The buildings are shown to be outside of fluvial flood zone 2, however the Adventure sequential test should be outlined in the FRA. Centre Site • Any existing drainage should be outlined – drain by the climbing wall • The ditch and concrete pipe are for confined spaces training then this should be detailed on the plans to avoid confusion! • SW drainage should be provided for the additional hardstanding areas. If the greenfield is too low then the closest possible with a protected orifice or a minimum diameter of 50mm for a flow control should be used. The LLFA would advocate the use of source control SuDs, this site appears to have more space to include above ground features such as swales for conveyance etc. The Suds manual hazard index should be used for surface water treatment. It should be included in the strategy that the cars proposed to be stored will be stripped down and therefore less likely to cause pollution. • The downstream culvert needs to be shown to be in sufficient structural condition to convey flows. The ownership of the culvert and who will maintain it should be investigated. 3. Existing weir at • The LLFA would require confirmation that the Environment Agency have Kingsbury been consulted are happy to accept the alterations to the weir. Junction • Outline that no new impervious surfaces are to be created in the refurbishment of the existing loose gravel track. 4. Ownership and • The ownership and maintenance of the drainage features for all the maintenance. discussed proposals should be outlined as part of the FRA/Drainage Strategy. However, the detailed contacts can be conditioned. 5. To be • FRA considering all sources of flooding especially surface water. submitted with • An outline drainage strategy to include; planning • Discharge rate application • Attenuation volume • Viable outfall • Proposed SuDs features • Overland flows

Other aspects of detailed design we are happy to condition, this can be discussed before or when the application is submitted.

Any advice given by LLFA officers at pre-application stage is not a formal response as a statutory consultee. We will give you the best advice possible based on the information provided. This advice will be offered in good faith and to the best of our ability, without prejudice to consideration of a formally submitted planning application which may generate previously unknown issues through evaluation of the more detailed information submitted with the application.

Appendix F MicroDrainage Calculations

Curtins Consulting Limited Page 1 Quayside UWE Phase 2 40-58 Hotwell Road Surface Water Network Bristol BS8 4UQ With Offsite Date 15/09/2020 18:00 Designed by AB File PROPOSED LEA MASTERTON.MDX Checked by TN XP Solutions Network 2017.1.2

STORM SEWER DESIGN by the Modified Rational Method

Design Criteria for X600-C3D-RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Pipe Sizes STANDARD Manhole Sizes STANDARD

FSR Rainfall Model - England and Wales Return Period (years) 1 PIMP (%) 100 M5-60 (mm) 20.000 Add Flow / Climate Change (%) 0 Ratio R 0.350 Minimum Backdrop Height (m) 0.000 Maximum Rainfall (mm/hr) 0 Maximum Backdrop Height (m) 0.000 Maximum Time of Concentration (mins) 30 Min Design Depth for Optimisation (m) 0.900 Foul Sewage (l/s/ha) 0.000 Min Vel for Auto Design only (m/s) 0.75 Volumetric Runoff Coeff. 0.750 Min Slope for Optimisation (1:X) 500

Designed with Level Soffits

Network Design Table for X600-C3D-RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

# - Indicates pipe length does not match coordinates

PN Length Fall Slope I.Area T.E. Base k HYD DIA Section Type Auto (m) (m) (1:X) (ha) (mins) Flow (l/s) (mm) SECT (mm) Design

1.000 22.400# 0.220 101.8 0.120 5.00 0.0 0.600 o 150 Pipe/Conduit

2.000 6.000# 0.100 60.0 0.100 5.00 0.0 0.600 o 225 Pipe/Conduit

1.001 7.000# 0.200 35.0 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.600 o 225 Pipe/Conduit 1.002 12.600# 0.240 52.5 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.600 o 225 Pipe/Conduit

Network Results Table

PN Rain T.C. US/IL Σ I.Area Σ Base Foul Add Flow Vel Cap Flow (mm/hr) (mins) (m) (ha) Flow (l/s) (l/s) (l/s) (m/s) (l/s) (l/s)

1.000 0.00 5.37 67.220 0.120 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 17.6 0.0

2.000 0.00 5.06 67.800 0.100 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.69 67.3 0.0

1.001 0.00 5.43 67.000 0.220 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.22 88.2 0.0 1.002 0.00 5.54 66.800 0.220 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.81 71.9 0.0

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Curtins Consulting Limited Page 2 Quayside UWE Phase 2 40-58 Hotwell Road Surface Water Network Bristol BS8 4UQ With Offsite Date 15/09/2020 18:00 Designed by AB File PROPOSED LEA MASTERTON.MDX Checked by TN XP Solutions Network 2017.1.2

PIPELINE SCHEDULES for X600-C3D-RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Upstream Manhole

# - Indicates pipe length does not match coordinates

PN Hyd Diam MH C.Level I.Level D.Depth MH MH DIAM., L*W Sect (mm) Name (m) (m) (m) Connection (mm)

1.000 o 150 MH A1 69.500 67.220 2.130 Open Manhole 1200

2.000 o 225 MH B1 69.050 67.800 1.025 Open Manhole 1200

1.001 o 225 MH A2 69.000 67.000 1.775 Open Manhole 1200 1.002 o 225 MH A3 69.000 66.800 1.975 Open Manhole 1200

Downstream Manhole

PN Length Slope MH C.Level I.Level D.Depth MH MH DIAM., L*W (m) (1:X) Name (m) (m) (m) Connection (mm)

1.000 22.400# 101.8 MH A2 69.000 67.000 1.850 Open Manhole 1200

2.000 6.000# 60.0 MH A2 69.000 67.700 1.075 Open Manhole 1200

1.001 7.000# 35.0 MH A3 69.000 66.800 1.975 Open Manhole 1200 1.002 12.600# 52.5 Outfall 68.000 66.560 1.215 Open Manhole 225

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Curtins Consulting Limited Page 3 Quayside UWE Phase 2 40-58 Hotwell Road Surface Water Network Bristol BS8 4UQ With Offsite Date 15/09/2020 18:00 Designed by AB File PROPOSED LEA MASTERTON.MDX Checked by TN XP Solutions Network 2017.1.2

Area Summary for X600-C3D-RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Pipe PIMP PIMP PIMP Gross Imp. Pipe Total Number Type Name (%) Area (ha) Area (ha) (ha)

1.000 - - 100 0.120 0.120 0.120 2.000 - - 100 0.100 0.100 0.100 1.001 - - 100 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.002 - - 100 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Total Total 0.220 0.220 0.220

Free Flowing Outfall Details for X600-C3D-RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Outfall Outfall C. Level I. Level Min D,L W Pipe Number Name (m) (m) I. Level (mm) (mm) (m)

1.002 Outfall 68.000 66.560 0.000 225 0

Simulation Criteria for X600-C3D-RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Volumetric Runoff Coeff 0.750 Additional Flow - % of Total Flow 0.000 Areal Reduction Factor 1.000 MADD Factor * 10m³/ha Storage 2.000 Hot Start (mins) 0 Inlet Coeffiecient 0.800 Hot Start Level (mm) 0 Flow per Person per Day (l/per/day) 0.000 Manhole Headloss Coeff (Global) 0.500 Run Time (mins) 60 Foul Sewage per hectare (l/s) 0.000 Output Interval (mins) 1

Number of Input Hydrographs 0 Number of Offline Controls 0 Number of Time/Area Diagrams 0 Number of Online Controls 1 Number of Storage Structures 1 Number of Real Time Controls 0

Synthetic Rainfall Details

Rainfall Model FSR Profile Type Summer Return Period (years) 1 Cv (Summer) 0.750 Region England and Wales Cv (Winter) 0.840 M5-60 (mm) 20.000 Storm Duration (mins) 30 Ratio R 0.350

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Curtins Consulting Limited Page 4 Quayside UWE Phase 2 40-58 Hotwell Road Surface Water Network Bristol BS8 4UQ With Offsite Date 15/09/2020 18:00 Designed by AB File PROPOSED LEA MASTERTON.MDX Checked by TN XP Solutions Network 2017.1.2

Online Controls for X600-C3D-RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Hydro-Brake® Optimum Manhole: MH A2, DS/PN: 1.001, Volume (m³): 2.8

Unit Reference MD-SHE-0058-1800-1500-1800 Design Head (m) 1.500 Design Flow (l/s) 1.8 Flush-Flo™ Calculated Objective Minimise upstream storage Application Surface Sump Available Yes Diameter (mm) 58 Invert Level (m) 67.000 Minimum Outlet Pipe Diameter (mm) 75 Suggested Manhole Diameter (mm) 1200

Control Points Head (m) Flow (l/s) Control Points Head (m) Flow (l/s)

Design Point (Calculated) 1.500 1.8 Kick-Flo® 0.514 1.1 Flush-Flo™ 0.254 1.4 Mean Flow over Head Range - 1.4

The hydrological calculations have been based on the Head/Discharge relationship for the Hydro-Brake® Optimum as specified. Should another type of control device other than a Hydro-Brake Optimum® be utilised then these storage routing calculations will be invalidated

Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s)

0.100 1.2 0.800 1.4 2.000 2.0 4.000 2.8 7.000 3.7 0.200 1.3 1.000 1.5 2.200 2.1 4.500 3.0 7.500 3.8 0.300 1.4 1.200 1.6 2.400 2.2 5.000 3.1 8.000 3.9 0.400 1.3 1.400 1.7 2.600 2.3 5.500 3.3 8.500 4.0 0.500 1.2 1.600 1.9 3.000 2.5 6.000 3.4 9.000 4.1 0.600 1.2 1.800 2.0 3.500 2.7 6.500 3.5 9.500 4.2

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Curtins Consulting Limited Page 5 Quayside UWE Phase 2 40-58 Hotwell Road Surface Water Network Bristol BS8 4UQ With Offsite Date 15/09/2020 18:00 Designed by AB File PROPOSED LEA MASTERTON.MDX Checked by TN XP Solutions Network 2017.1.2

30 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank 1) for X600-C3D- RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Simulation Criteria Areal Reduction Factor 1.000 Additional Flow - % of Total Flow 0.000 Hot Start (mins) 0 MADD Factor * 10m³/ha Storage 2.000 Hot Start Level (mm) 0 Inlet Coeffiecient 0.800 Manhole Headloss Coeff (Global) 0.500 Flow per Person per Day (l/per/day) 0.000 Foul Sewage per hectare (l/s) 0.000

Number of Input Hydrographs 0 Number of Offline Controls 0 Number of Time/Area Diagrams 0 Number of Online Controls 1 Number of Storage Structures 1 Number of Real Time Controls 0

Synthetic Rainfall Details Rainfall Model FSR M5-60 (mm) 19.000 Cv (Summer) 0.750 Region England and Wales Ratio R 0.400 Cv (Winter) 0.840

Margin for Flood Risk Warning (mm) 300.0 DVD Status OFF Analysis Timestep Fine Inertia Status OFF DTS Status ON

Profile(s) Summer and Winter Duration(s) (mins) 15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600, 720, 960, 1440 Return Period(s) (years) 30, 100, 101 Climate Change (%) 0, 30, 0

Water Surcharged US/MH Return Climate First (X) First (Y) First (Z) Overflow Level Depth PN Name Storm Period Change Surcharge Flood Overflow Act. (m) (m)

1.000 MH A1 240 Winter 30 +0% 30/15 Summer 67.675 0.305 2.000 MH B1 15 Winter 30 +0% 100/15 Summer 68.023 -0.002 1.001 MH A2 15 Winter 30 +0% 30/15 Summer 100/480 Winter 67.986 0.761 1.002 MH A3 15 Winter 30 +0% 66.823 -0.202

Flooded Pipe US/MH Volume Flow / Overflow Flow Level PN Name (m³) Cap. (l/s) (l/s) Status Exceeded

1.000 MH A1 0.000 0.10 1.6 SURCHARGED 2.000 MH B1 0.000 0.67 29.9 OK 1.001 MH A2 0.000 0.02 1.5 SURCHARGED 1.002 MH A3 0.000 0.02 1.5 OK

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Curtins Consulting Limited Page 6 Quayside UWE Phase 2 40-58 Hotwell Road Surface Water Network Bristol BS8 4UQ With Offsite Date 15/09/2020 18:00 Designed by AB File PROPOSED LEA MASTERTON.MDX Checked by TN XP Solutions Network 2017.1.2

100 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank 1) for X600-C3D- RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Number of Input Hydrographs 0 Number of Offline Controls 0 Number of Time/Area Diagrams 0 Number of Online Controls 1 Number of Storage Structures 1 Number of Real Time Controls 0

Synthetic Rainfall Details Rainfall Model FSR M5-60 (mm) 19.000 Cv (Summer) 0.750 Region England and Wales Ratio R 0.400 Cv (Winter) 0.840

Margin for Flood Risk Warning (mm) 300.0 DVD Status OFF Analysis Timestep Fine Inertia Status OFF DTS Status ON

Profile(s) Summer and Winter Duration(s) (mins) 15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600, 720, 960, 1440 Return Period(s) (years) 30, 100, 101 Climate Change (%) 0, 30, 0

Water Surcharged US/MH Return Climate First (X) First (Y) First (Z) Overflow Level Depth PN Name Storm Period Change Surcharge Flood Overflow Act. (m) (m)

1.000 MH A1 480 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer 68.093 0.723 2.000 MH B1 15 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer 68.851 0.826 1.001 MH A2 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer 100/480 Winter 68.763 1.538 1.002 MH A3 15 Winter 100 +30% 66.826 -0.199

Flooded Pipe US/MH Volume Flow / Overflow Flow Level PN Name (m³) Cap. (l/s) (l/s) Status Exceeded

1.000 MH A1 0.000 0.26 4.3 SURCHARGED 2.000 MH B1 0.000 0.96 43.0 FLOOD RISK 1.001 MH A2 0.000 0.03 1.9 FLOOD RISK 1.002 MH A3 0.000 0.03 1.9 OK

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Curtins Consulting Limited Page 7 Quayside UWE Phase 2 40-58 Hotwell Road Surface Water Network Bristol BS8 4UQ With Offsite Date 15/09/2020 18:00 Designed by AB File PROPOSED LEA MASTERTON.MDX Checked by TN XP Solutions Network 2017.1.2

101 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank 1) for X600-C3D- RevC - Drainage Model.SWS

Number of Input Hydrographs 0 Number of Offline Controls 0 Number of Time/Area Diagrams 0 Number of Online Controls 1 Number of Storage Structures 1 Number of Real Time Controls 0

Synthetic Rainfall Details Rainfall Model FSR M5-60 (mm) 19.000 Cv (Summer) 0.750 Region England and Wales Ratio R 0.400 Cv (Winter) 0.840

Margin for Flood Risk Warning (mm) 300.0 DVD Status OFF Analysis Timestep Fine Inertia Status OFF DTS Status ON

Profile(s) Summer and Winter Duration(s) (mins) 15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600, 720, 960, 1440 Return Period(s) (years) 30, 100, 101 Climate Change (%) 0, 30, 0

Water Surcharged US/MH Return Climate First (X) First (Y) First (Z) Overflow Level Depth PN Name Storm Period Change Surcharge Flood Overflow Act. (m) (m)

1.000 MH A1 360 Winter 101 +0% 30/15 Summer 67.855 0.485 2.000 MH B1 15 Winter 101 +0% 100/15 Summer 68.350 0.325 1.001 MH A2 15 Winter 101 +0% 30/15 Summer 100/480 Winter 68.285 1.060 1.002 MH A3 15 Winter 101 +0% 66.824 -0.201

Flooded Pipe US/MH Volume Flow / Overflow Flow Level PN Name (m³) Cap. (l/s) (l/s) Status Exceeded

1.000 MH A1 0.000 0.13 2.1 SURCHARGED 2.000 MH B1 0.000 0.79 35.4 SURCHARGED 1.001 MH A2 0.000 0.03 1.7 SURCHARGED 1.002 MH A3 0.000 0.03 1.7 OK

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Appendix G Drainage Layout

69 75 69

70.30 70.24 69.51

70.16

70.25 69.54

69.66 69.89 70.12 Concrete Edge Concrete

69.65 69.35

70.22 70.20

69.40 69.73 70.19

69.96

69.75 69.51

70.25 69.75 70.22

Security Fence

69.58

70.16 69.41 HANDBOOK FOR THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE.

69.78 TANKER AND DISPOSAL OFF SITE IN ACCORANCE FIREWATER HOLDING TANK FOR COLLECTION BY

70.29 70.01

TANK SIZING TO BE CONFIRMED SUBJECT

69.40

FREQUENCY OF USAGE AND MAINTENANCE 69.74

WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DISCHARGE TO THE FIREWATER TANK. AFTER DRILL VALVE IS

69.50 69.71

ADJUSTED BEFORE AND AFTER EVERY DRILL TO BLOCK THE OUTLET TO THE SURFACE WATER SYSTEM AND DIRECT 69.31

69.59

69.53 STOP VALVE TO BE FITTED IN MANHOLE MANUALLY 69.37 TO BE LIFTED ALLOW FOR NORMAL SURFACE WATER

69.17

69.27

69.23 Barrier 69.61

Wall

REQUIREMENTS.

69.97 70.0 68.71

69.12

69.11

69.35

69.18

69.83 70.12 DRAINAGE TO RESUME

THE KERB INTO SHALLOW GRASSED SWALE

Wall 69.75

ALLOW SURFACE WATER TO FLOW THROUGH post

68.90 69.49

SLOTTED KERB (2m KERB, 300mm GAP) TO 68.58

68.73 68.83

68.84 68.88

68.71 68.77

69.88

69.84

68.61

post

69.18 68.83

68.56 68.66 69.50

Barrier 68.67 IL: 68.65 1200mm Ø PCC 1200mm Ø PCC IL: 68.600 IL: 68.700 CL: 69.500 CL: 69.100

68.71

Wall 68.65

SHALLOW GRASSED SWALE (300mm DEEP) WITH 68.61

FILTER DRAIN BELOW TO COLLECT SURFACE

post

69.71

69.75

69.01

WATER RUN-OFF FROM PAVED AREAS 68.76

69.47

68.55

68.65

68.67

69.18 68.88

68.71

68.64

69.66

68.61

Water Edge Water

68.55

69.51 69.62

PROPOSED SURFACE WATER CELLULAR TANK

Barrier 69.64

69.64 68.71 TANK DIMENSIONS: 15m x 9m 1m DEEP

68.54

69.54

69.40

ATTENUATION REQUIRED: 130m3 69.11

OUTLET WILL BE CONFIGURED TO ALLOW FOR SURFACE CHANNEL DRAIN TO COLLECT FIREWATER FOLLOWING TRAINING SESSIONS. DURING NON-TRAINING HOURS WATER DISCHARGE TO THE SURFACE SYSTEM 68.60 BASE OF TANK: 67.10m AOD TOP OF TANK: 68.10m AOD CL: 68.90m AOD (APPROX) HYDRO-BRAKE FLOW CONTROL CHAMBER

DISCHARGE RATE SUBJECT TO LLFA AND

66.56

68.52

68.84 68.66 69.45

68.73