DOCSLIB.ORG

Long Whatton & Diseworth Flood Risk Mitigation & Resilience Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long Whatton & Diseworth Flood Risk Mitigation & Resilience Study LONG WHATTON & DISEWORTH FLOOD RISK MITIGATION & RESILIENCE STUDY Final Model Report AUGUST 2020 CONTACTS SIMON AINLEY Project Manager dd +01752 689006 Arcadis. e [email protected] 34 York Way London N1 9AB Copyright © 2018 Arcadis. All rights reserved. arcadis.com VERSION CONTROL Version Date Author Checker Approver Changes 01 09/06/2020 S Ainley J Sourbutts N McClung First Issue 02 16/07/2020 S Ainley J Sourbutts N McClung Second Issue 03 25/08/2020 S Ainley J Sourbutts N McClung Second Issue This report dated 25 August 2020 has been prepared for Leicestershire County Council (the “Client”) in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment (the “Appointment”) between the Client and Arcadis UK (“Arcadis”) for the purposes specified in the Appointment. For avoidance of doubt, no other person(s) may use or rely upon this report or its contents, and Arcadis accepts no responsibility for any such use or reliance thereon by any other third party. ii CONTENTS VERSION CONTROL .......................................................................................................... II 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1 2 PROJECT SCOPE & CONTEXT ............................................................................... 2 2.1 Previous Investigations ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Scope of this Project ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Project Objective .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Data & Information ................................................................................................................................ 3 3 MODEL BUILD .......................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Software ................................................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Modelling Approach ............................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Feature Conceptualisation................................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Catchment Topography ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Modelling Assumptions & Limitations ............................................................................................. 14 4 HYDROLOGY & RAINFALL ................................................................................... 15 4.1 Catchment Runoff ............................................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Rainfall Events .................................................................................................................................... 17 5 MODEL VALIDATION ............................................................................................. 19 5.1 Historical Flooding ............................................................................................................................. 19 5.2 EA Surface Water Flood Mapping ..................................................................................................... 22 6 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 24 6.1 Flooding Wetspots ............................................................................................................................. 24 6.3 East Midlands Airport ......................................................................................................................... 33 7 OPTIONS APPRAISAL ........................................................................................... 37 7.1 Flood Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................................................... 37 7.2 Option Long-list .................................................................................................................................. 37 7.3 Option Short-listing ............................................................................................................................ 41 7.4 Promoted Options Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 44 8 ECONOMIC EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 53 8.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 53 iii 8.2 Scheme Costing .................................................................................................................................. 53 8.3 Flood Benefits ..................................................................................................................................... 55 8.4 FCERM Funding .................................................................................................................................. 56 9 FURTHER MITIGATION & CATCHMENT RESILIENCE ........................................ 57 9.1 Monitoring & Community Preparedness .......................................................................................... 57 9.2 Adaptation & Re-purposing Strategies ............................................................................................ 58 9.3 Natural Flood Management................................................................................................................ 59 10 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 61 10.1 Flood Risk............................................................................................................................................ 61 10.2 Influence of the East Midlands Airport ............................................................................................. 61 10.3 Options Feasibility .............................................................................................................................. 61 10.4 Economic Viability .............................................................................................................................. 61 ..................................................................................................................... 62 Data & Information Register .......................................................................................................................... 62 ..................................................................................................................... 64 Watercourse Structures Register ................................................................................................................. 64 ..................................................................................................................... 71 2D Roughness Values .................................................................................................................................... 71 ..................................................................................................................... 73 Flood Risk Mapping ........................................................................................................................................ 73 ..................................................................................................................... 88 Infiltration Parameters.................................................................................................................................... 88 ..................................................................................................................... 91 Diseworth – Property Level Resilience, Proposed Schedule..................................................................... 91 ..................................................................................................................... 95 East Midlands Airport Ponds Active Discharge Control – Technical Overview ...................................... 95 iv FIGURES Figure 1 – Example of Property Roof Runoff in the Model ................................................................................ 6 Figure 2 – Typical Connectivity of Highway Drainage System .......................................................................... 6 Figure 3 – East Midlands Airport Surface Water Model Subcatchments & Drainage Network ......................... 7 Figure 4 – East Midlands Airport Ponds Layout and Interconnectivity (schematic) .......................................... 8 Figure 5 – East Midlands Airport Ponds Operating Regime (Schematic) ......................................................... 9 Figure 6 – Demonstration of 2D Mesh Elements and Levels .......................................................................... 10 Figure 7 – Examples of Topographic 2D Meshing Detail ................................................................................ 10 Figure 8 – Topographic Adjustments to Buildings and Roads .......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Assessment of Highways England's
    Annual Assessment of Highways England’s Performance April 2020 to March 2021 HC454 Annual Assessment of Highways England’s Performance April 2020 to March 2021 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 15 July 2021 HC454 © Crown copyright 2021 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. © Crown copyright 2020 Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at This 25 Cabot Square, London, E14 publication is licensed under 4QZ. the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3ISBN 978-1-5286-2760-3 . Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain CCS0621812220 07/21 permission from the copyright holders concerned. Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum This publication is available at orr.gov.uk Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery OfficeAny enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at orr.gov.uk/contact-us Office of Rail and Road | Annual Assessment of Highways England’s Performance: April 2020 to March 2021 Contents Foreword ..............................................................................................................6 Executive summary ..................................................................................................8 1.
    [Show full text]
  • River Mease Walkover Survey Report Natural England APEM Ref 413482 March 2016 This Project Is Part of the IPENS Programme (LIFE1
    River Mease Walkover Survey Report Natural England APEM Ref 413482 March 2016 This project is part of the IPENS programme (LIFE11NAT/UK/000384IPENS) which is financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community Dr Peter Stone Client: Natural England Address: APEX Court City Link Nottingham NG2 4LA Project reference: 413482 Date of issue: April 2015 ________________________ Project Director: Dr David Fraser Project Manager: Dr Peter Stone Other: Hugh Graham ________________________ APEM Ltd Riverview A17 Embankment Business Park Heaton Mersey Stockport SK4 3GN Tel: 0161 442 8938 Fax: 0161 432 6083 Registered in England No. 2530851 “This is a draft document and should not be cited” Registered in England No. 2530851, Registered Address Riverview A17 Embankment Business Park, Heaton Mersey, Stockport, SK4 3GN Revision and Amendment Register Version Date Section(s) Page(s) Summary of Changes Approved by Number 1 10/2/15 Draft for client review PS 2 27/02/15 5 27 Final following client comment PS Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................. 1 2. Methodology ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • VACCINES for ROADS Second Edition NEW
    VACCINES FOR ROADS Second edition NEW WE CAN CREATE A WORLD FREE OF HIGH-RISK ROADS A WORLD FREE OF HIGH RISK ROADS | irap.org NEW * LOCAL SAFETY CHAMPIONS LEADING ROAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES IN 70 COUNTRIES * RISK ON HALF A MILLION KILOMETRES OF ROADS ASSESSED * STRATEGIES TO PREVENT 50,000 DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES A YEAR IN LOW-INCOME AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES * STAR RATINGS BEING USED TO DESIGN SAFE NEW ROADS irap.org | A WORLD FREE OF HIGH RISK ROADS 3,500 people will die on the world’s roads associations and road authorities leading The good news is that Safer Roads to have lasting partnerships with many today and 100,000 more will be seriously in road safety. The programme created Investment Plans are making the solutions road authorities, automobile associations, injured or disabled. But road death is not simple and objective measures of road equally clear. Construction of just 65km of multilateral development banks, research inevitable—it is preventable. safety risk and highlighted the vital footpaths on high-risk roads in Costa Rica, institutes, donors and non-government role that road infrastructure can play for instance, would prevent almost 3,000 organisations. A network of accredited There has never been a more opportune in preventing crashes and reducing deaths and serious injuries over 20 years road safety professionals and companies moment to tackle this serious and the severity of injuries. The approach and save $215 million in crash costs. Much capable of competitively bidding to rapidly worsening public health crisis by spread rapidly throughout Europe, then of this cost would otherwise be borne provide high-quality iRAP assessments is fundamentally changing the inherent to Australia, the United States and New by an already stretched health sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Hills, Christopher William Walter (1994) the Examination and Prediction of Opencast Backfill Settlement. Phd Thesis, University of Nottingham
    Hills, Christopher William Walter (1994) The examination and prediction of opencast backfill settlement. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. Access from the University of Nottingham repository: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/11501/1/260774.pdf Copyright and reuse: The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions. · Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. · To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in Nottingham ePrints has been checked for eligibility before being made available. · Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not- for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. · Quotations or similar reproductions must be sufficiently acknowledged. Please see our full end user licence at: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING H ..; 1it Ci' THE EXAMINATION AND PREDICTION OF OPENCAST BACKFILL SETTLEMENT by Christopher W.
    [Show full text]
  • North West Leicestershire District Council Potential Impact of High Speed 2 – REVISED VERSION
    North West Leicestershire District Council Potential Impact of High Speed 2 – REVISED VERSION This is a revised version of the original document which was prepared by SLC Rail based on the 2013 route. Since then, HS2 Ltd consulted on two route amendments in November 2016, which were: To move the line to the east of Measham, away from the M42/A42 road corridor To remove the line from tunnel underneath East Midlands Airport and run it east of the A42 through the rest of the District, passing close to the western side of Kegworth The revised route was announced in July 2017; the proposition to move the line east of Measham was dropped, but there was a minor amendment to avoid the Plastic Omnium development (with further knock-on effects to this area which are discussed below). The proposed northern amendment towards Kegworth was retained. However, it is worth noting that HS2 Ltd state on their website that the final route of Phase 2b is not confirmed and therefore could be subject to further minor alterations. Summary of key points: Environmental impacts on the River Mease and National Forest Opportunities for regeneration in Measham (via government compensation) – but loss of Measham Wharf and associated S106 benefits in the short term Impacts on Kegworth through loss of development sites and S106 benefits Current scheme for works on J13 of M42 to be disrupted by HS2 route Disruption to M1 J24 (with knock on effects to East Midlands Airport/freight interchange site and Donington Park) Road access for HS2 users via M42/A42 to Birmingham Interchange.
    [Show full text]
  • Leicestershire Constabulary North Area Reducing Burglary 1 Reducing the Fear of Crime Leicestershire Constabulary Reducing Burglary — Reducing the Fear of Crime
    Leicestershire Constabulary Reducing Burglary — Reducing the Fear of Crime 1 Leicestershire Constabulary North Area Reducing Burglary 1 Reducing The Fear of Crime Leicestershire Constabulary Reducing Burglary — Reducing the Fear of Crime 1 Endorsing Chief Officer: Mr. M. Creedon Acting/Assistant Chief Constable 1 Operations Leicestershire Constabulary Entryfor: Crime Disorder Reduction Category Tilley Award 2001 North Area Project Team: Constable Michael Kaiser Crime Prevention Officer Mr. Roy Mollett Research Officer Inspector Neil Newell Community Unit Manager Contact: Michael Kaiser Crime Prevention Officer Loughborough Police Station Southfields Road Loughborough Leicestershire 1 LE11 2XF (0116) 2484123 or Voice Mail (0116) 2485675 then following instructions entering Officer N° 0054 1 1 Leicestershire Constabulary Reducing Burglary — Reducing the Fear of Crime 1 Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Introduction Project Locality and Description 2 Initial Scanning (Macro) Further Scanning (Micro) 3 Analysis 3-5 Response Phase 5 - 9 I v Partnerships 6 v Protection and Reassurance Initiative to Defend the Elderly (PRIDE) 6 v Partnership Funding and Costed Plan 6 v Survey and Crime Prevention Advice 7 v Bogus Caller Video and Presentations 7 I v Press and Publicity Strategy 8 v Link to National and Local Programmes 8 - 9 Operation `Liberate Assessment 10 - 11 t Conclusion 11 - 12 1 Appendices v 1 Map of Beat 29 Ashby showing scope of project v 1 2 Initial Crime Analyst Figures — 32 beats of the North Area v 1 3 & 3a Complete Demographic/Crime
    [Show full text]
  • River Mease Road Runoff: Impacts on Water and Sediment Quality Final Report Client: Natural England APEM Ref 413482 March 2016 T
    River Mease Road Runoff: impacts on water and sediment quality Final Report Client: Natural England APEM Ref 413482 March 2016 This project is part of the IPENS programme (LIFE11NAT/UK/000384IPENS) which is financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community Registered in England No. 2530851, Registered Address Riverview A17 Embankment Business Park, Heaton Mersey, Stockport, SK4 3GN NJ Rogers1, WH Blake1*, R Goddard1, S Comber1, R Hartley1, S Lewin1 and P.Stone2 1Catchment and River Science Research Group (CaRiS), School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Plymouth University, PL4 8AA (*[email protected]) 2APEM Ltd Client: Natural England Address: APEX Court City Link Nottingham NG2 4LA Project reference: Date of issue: ________________________ Project Director: Dr David Fraser Project Manager: Dr Peter Stone Other: Professor Will Blake, Dr Nicola Rogers ________________________ APEM Ltd Riverview A17 Embankment Business Park Heaton Mersey Stockport SK4 3GN Tel: 0161 442 8938 Fax: 0161 432 6083 Registered in England No. 2530851 Registered in England No. 2530851, Registered Address Riverview A17 Embankment Business Park, Heaton Mersey, Stockport, SK4 3GN Revision and Amendment Register Version Date Section(s) Page(s) Summary of Changes Approved by Number 1 10/2/15 5 59 DRAFT for client comment PS 2 10/4/15 5 67 FINAL PS 3 28/4/15 5 67 Final following client comment PS 1. Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of Road Runoff Inputs from the A42 Into the River Mease, UK: Winter 2013/14
    Investigation of road runoff inputs from the A42 into the River Mease, UK: winter 2013/14 Final: April 2014 A Taylor, WH Blake*, S Comber, R Goddard, A Fisher, HG Smith, L Gaspar, J Darmovzalova Catchment and River Science Research Group (CaRiS), School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Plymouth University, PL4 8AA (*contact: [email protected] ) With Victoria Levett (project manager) and David Fraser (project director) APEM Ltd, Centre for Innovation & Enterprise, Oxford University Begbroke Science Park, Begbroke Hill, Woodstock Road, Begbroke, Oxfordshire, OX5 1PF (APEM Project 412766) This project is part of the IPENS programme (LIFE11NAT/UK/000384IPENS) which is financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community 1 Contents pg 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Project Brief 1.2 Road runoff problems: review of literature 1.3 Aims and objectives 2. Methods and approach 12 2.1. Site selection 2.2. Field monitoring 2.3 Water quality sampling and analysis for metals 2.4 Sediment quality sampling and fingerprinting 3. Results and discussion 15 3.1. Hydrographs from Mease channel above and below and at the A42 culvert input 3.2. Total and dissolved metals during sampled storm periods 3.3. Road dust and impacts on river sediment quality 4. Conclusions and recommendations 29 4.1 Key messages 4.2 Recommendations 4.3 Limitations and further work This project is part of the IPENS programme (LIFE11NAT/UK/000384IPENS) which is financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community’ “The Improvement Programme for England’s Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS), supported by EU LIFE+, is a new strategic approach to managing England’s Natura 2000 sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Investing in the A46 to Keep the Midlands Moving 1 the Case for Improving the A46
    A4PART6NERSHIP Investing in the A46 to keep the Midlands moving 1 The case for improving the A46 The A46/M69 is a key strategic route connecting the South West with 2 the East Midlands from the M5 at Tewkesbury to the M1 and onwards to the east of Leicester and linking a number of significant businesses, The A46 Partnership urban areas and key transport facilities with the national road The A46/M69 corridor is 70 miles long and connects the counties of network. In recent years certain sections of the route have been Gloucestershire , Worcestershire , Warwickshire and Leicestershire . gradually improved, but the upgrading has been piecemeal and it has Although largely rural in character it also includes and links the urban been recognised that the prospect of further improvement can be centres of Tewkesbury, Evesham, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwick, boosted by working together. Leamington Spa, Kenilworth, Coventry and Leicester. This section of the A46 links the M5 corridor to the South West with the Midlands and The A46 Partnership has been formed to co-ordinate the efforts of the local authorities North East England; it is also an important route for local traffic and supports significant and Local Enterprise Partnerships linked by this 70 mile stretch of the A46/M69; to speak employment and housing growth. with one voice in order to highlight the need for more to be done. The A46 Partnership However, there are constraints preventing the A46 from reaching its potential to handle has the support of local MPs. both through and local traffic and also to provide a credible alternative to the M5 and M42 The case for improvement is compelling, even more so as the main alternative route via for linking the South West with the East Midlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: North West Leicestershire District Council Potential Impact of High Speed 2
    Appendix 1: North West Leicestershire District Council Potential Impact of High Speed 2 Summary of key points: Issues with the proposed route amendment east of Measham; impacts on villages and “boxing in” of the area, with related effects upon listed buildings and conservation areas Effects on planned developments around Kegworth with the northern amendment, moving the route in line with the A42 Environmental impact on the National Forest Current scheme for works on J13 of M42 to be disrupted by HS2 route Road access for HS2 users via M42/A42 to Birmingham Interchange. Information needed from Highways England Information needed on HS2’s plans for rights of way, e.g. footpaths, cycle ways Impact on HS2 route as a result of approved planning application for East Midlands Gateway air freight terminal Introduction The potential effects of the proposed HS2 alignment through North West Leicestershire have been assessed against the following: 1. Landscape and Visual 2. Ecology and Wildlife 3. Noise 4. Roads and Traffic 5. Development 6. Heritage 7. Public Amenities 8. Water and flooding This version of the document sets out the original route alignment and the November 2016 proposed amendments in a parallel view. The route was divided into three geographical sections. For most of its length through the area of interest, the proposed route for HS2 runs parallel, and in close proximity, to the A42 trunk road, although this alignment has now moved away from the road corridor around Measham. Some of the disadvantages from the railway placement, where it runs in the same corridor as the M42/A42 can be viewed in the context of existing visual, noise and other intrusions from the heavily-used trunk road.
    [Show full text]
  • Midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire Route Strategy March 2017 Contents 1
    Midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire Route Strategy March 2017 Contents 1. Introduction 1 Purpose of Route Strategies 2 Strategic themes 2 Stakeholder engagement 3 Transport Focus 3 2. The route 5 Route Strategy overview map 7 3. Current constraints and challenges 9 A safe and serviceable network 9 More free-flowing network 9 Supporting economic growth 10 An improved environment 10 A more accessible and integrated network 10 Diversionary routes 13 Maintaining the strategic road network 14 4. Current investment plans and growth potential 15 Economic context 15 Innovation 15 Investment plans 15 5. Future challenges and opportunities 19 6. Next steps 23 i R Lon ou don to Scotla te nd East London Or bital and M23 to Gatwick str Lon ategies don to Scotland West London to Wales The division of rou tes for the F progra elixstowe to Midlands mme of route strategies on t he Solent to Midlands Strategic Road Network M25 to Solent (A3 and M3) Kent Corridor to M25 (M2 and M20) South Coast Central Birmingham to Exeter A1 South West Peninsula London to Leeds (East) East of England South Pennines A19 A69 North Pen Newccaastlstlee upon Tyne nines Carlisle A1 Sunderland Midlands to Wales and Gloucest M6 ershire North and East Midlands A66 A1(M) A595 South Midlands Middlesbrougugh A66 A174 A590 A19 A1 A64 A585 M6 York Irish S Lee ea M55 ds M65 M1 Preston M606 M621 A56 M62 A63 Kingston upon Hull M62 M61 M58 A1 M1 Liver Manchest A628 A180 North Sea pool er M18 M180 Grimsby M57 A616 A1(M) M53 M62 M60 Sheffield A556 M56 M6 A46 A55 A1 Lincoln A500 Stoke-on-Trent
    [Show full text]
  • River Mease SSSI/SAC Restoration Plan: Technical Report
    River Mease SSSI/SAC Restoration Plan Technical Report March 2012 Document Control Sheet BPP 04 F8 Version 7 April 2011 Client: Natural England Project No: B1753400 Project: River Mease SSSI/SAC Restoration Plan Document Title: Technical Report Ref. No: Originated by Checked by Reviewed by Approved by NAME NAME NAME NAME ORIGINAL Duncan Wishart Jo Barlow Jo Barlow Suzanne Maas DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS 2nd March 2012 Document Status Draft for client comment NAME NAME NAME NAME REVISION Shirley Duncan Wishart Suzanne Maas Suzanne Maas Henderson DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS 19th March 2012 Document Status Final Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document.
    [Show full text]