PARISH: Kendal Natland Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg Helsington PROPOSAL: Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme - Phase 1 Kendal Linear Defences, comprising works along the rivers Kent & Mint through Kendal including new & raised flood walls, new & raised flood embankments, ground raising, pumping station & associated changes to the public realm & landscaping APPLICANT: Environment Agency Grid Ref: E: 351837 N: 492771 Committee date: 21 March 2019 SL/2018/0925 Land adjacent to Rivers Mint and Kent extending from adjacent to Lakeland Distribution Centre to Helsington Mills, KENDAL, NATLAND, SKELSMERGH AND SCALTHWAITERIGG, AND HELSINGTON Not to Scale SUMMARY 1. Kendal is currently at risk of flooding from events that can be expected to occur once in every 5 years. The Environment Agency has proposed the Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme (KFRMS) to reduce that risk to events that can be expected to occur once in every 100 years. KFRMS has been divided into three phases. This application relates to Phase 1, 6km of linear defences, mainly walls and embankments, adjoining both banks of the Rivers Mint and Kent from the Lakeland Distribution Centre in the north of the town to Helsington Mills in the south. Phase 1 in isolation is expected to reduce the risk of flooding for part of the town from events that can be expected to occur once in every 20 years. 2. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) that has assessed the likely impacts of the proposals put forward in Phase 1 across a broad range of receptors. The ES considers the likely impacts from construction and from the longer term operational phase of the development, taking into account extensive proposals for mitigation. In response to comments from statutory consultees and representations from other individuals/organisations the proposals have been amended since they were first submitted in November 2018. RECOMMENDATION 3. Approve with conditions. DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site description 4. The River Kent originates in the hills surrounding Kentmere and flows for around 20 miles passing through Kendal before discharging into Morecambe Bay. The major tributaries of the Rivers Mint, Sprint and Gowan join the Kent north of Kendal, whilst within the town itself the river is joined by Stock Beck, Blind Beck and Natland Mill Beck. 5. Outside the main urban area of Kendal, the catchment is mainly rural where high rainfall, thin soils and impermeable geology combine to produce large amounts of run-off. 6. The scheme boundary extends from adjacent to Lakeland Distribution Centre in the north of the town to Helsington Mills in the south. It incorporates a section of the River Mint from Kendal Rugby Union Club on the A6, Shap Road to the confluence with the River Kent. 7. The River Kent is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Proposal Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme 8. The wider Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme (KFRMS) ), if provided in its entirety, will eventually provide a 1 in 100 year standard of protection - protection for up to a 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP). The KFRMS is made up of a number of phases, set out as follows: Phase 1A – North Kendal linear defence raising Phase 1B – Stock Beck Pumping Station Phase 1C – Central and South Kendal linear defence raising Phase 2 – Burneside, Staveley and Ings linear defence raising Phase 3 – Upstream storage on the River Kent 9. This application covers Phase 1 (1A, 1B & 1C), collectively referred to in the application documents, and elsewhere in this report, as KFRMS – PH1 KLD. This first phase of the development will reduce flood risk from events with a minimum return period up to 1 in 20 years. KFRMS – PH1 KLD 10. Phase 1 of the KFRMS comprises three principal components. Flood walls and embankments 11. The scheme includes a combination of flood walls and embankments, collectively referred to as the linear defences, ranging in height from 0.3m to 2m and extending discontinuously for a total length of 6 kilometres along both banks of the River Mint and River Kent. At various points the walls and embankments tie into existing structures and areas of high ground to provide a continuous line of defences extending from the Lakeland Distribution Centre in the north of the town to Helsington Mills in the south. 12. The plans submitted with the application present the proposals in 12 different “reaches” of the river network, labelled A to L from north to south. In some locations linear defences are proposed in areas where there are already existing embankments and walls. The application is clear that, as things stand, the proposal is to remove these existing assets as they are not designated to be formal flood defences. However, these features may be incorporated into the final scheme, in part or in whole, if further detailed design work assesses them as suitable. 13. It is proposed to include drain down structures in the linear defences to ensure that water can escape back into the watercourse following a design exceedance event. These are proposed at any low spots where water could potentially pond behind the new defences. 14. The defences also include 14 flood gates and a number of up and over ramps or steps at strategic locations to retain access. The positions of these are clearly marked on the various plans. Where openings are greater than 4m wide the proposal is to utilise double leaf gates to limit the weight of individual gates to assist in closing them safely. Raising of levels 15. The scheme includes what it describes as “[s]ome minor raising of existing footpath, roads and garden patio levels to restrict flow paths.” These are clearly marked on the various drawings. Pumping station 16. A pumping station is to be provided at the outfall of Stock Beck. This will pump water into the River Kent at rate of 1m3/s at times when the flow would otherwise be impeded by high water levels in the main river. Associated proposals Flood proofing 17. KFRMS – PH1 KLD also includes flood proofing to some existing properties that border the watercourse, described in the ES as undertaking the appropriate measures to seal off any flow paths into existing properties such as repointing, raising air bricks, etc. There are no detailed proposals on a property- by-property basis, and in many cases is unlikely to need planning permission in any event. The ES states (para. 5.2.13) that in each case “it is assumed that the building has the structural capacity to withstand the extra hydrostatic loading. A building survey will be undertaken to confirm this during the next phase [of the design works]”. EIA Development 18. The proposal is “EIA development” for the purposes of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and, consequently, is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). Regulation 26 states: When determining an application or appeal in relation to which an environmental statement has been submitted, the relevant planning authority […] must— a) examine the environmental information; b) reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment, taking into account the examination referred to in sub-paragraph (a) and, where appropriate, their own supplementary examination; c) integrate that conclusion into the decision as to whether planning permission or subsequent consent is to be granted; and d) if planning permission or subsequent consent is to be granted, consider whether it is appropriate to impose monitoring measures. 19. The ES comprises the following five volumes: Volume 1 – Main Text Volume 2 – Plans Volume 3 – Appendices Volume 4 – Non-technical Summary Volume 5 – Photographic viewpoints Volume 1 is divided into the following three parts: 1. Introduction 2. Environmental Impact Assessments 3. Summary and Conclusions. The scope of the topics covered in Part 2 covers the following areas (with the relevant chapter numbers): 7. Air Quality 8. Biodiversity 9. Cultural Heritage 10. Landscape Character and Townscape 11. Visual Impact 12. Geology, Soils and Waste 13. People and Communities: Outdoor Access 14. Socio-Economics 15. Water Environment 16. Cumulative Effects For consistency, each topic area covered in Volume 1, Part 2 of the Environmental Report is structured as follows, with some variation to allow for the assessment and reporting requirements of individual topics: Introduction: defining the topic and its scope. Assessment Technique and Methodology: summarising the methodologies applied to gather baseline information, identify potential impacts and their effects and how the significance of these effects has been assessed. Reference is made to any guidelines or best practice followed and topic specific descriptors for determining the sensitivity of receptors and the magnitude of impacts are provided where available. Any important limitations or assumptions of the assessment process are highlighted as well as any consultation that has been undertaken to inform the assessment. Baseline Conditions: describing the current environmental condition pertinent to the topic being assessed and within the defined study area. Findings from desktop and field surveys are provided here. Preliminary Impact Assessment and Identification: summarising potential impacts and effects of the proposed scheme, beneficial or adverse, permanent or temporary with a preliminary assessment of significance without mitigation. Mitigation: describing proposed measures