LP/Ev/4h
Bracknell Forest Council
Water Cycle Study: Phase 2 Outline Report
Final Report
October 2018
Bracknell Forest Council Time Square Market Street Bracknell Berkshire RG12 1JD
JBA Project Manager Paul Eccleston JBA Consulting 8a Castle Street Wallingford Oxfordshire UNITED KINGDOM OX10 8DL 01491 836688
Revision History Revision Ref / Date Amendments Issued to Issued Version 1.0 / 12 February 2018 Bracknell Forest Council
Version 2.0 / Amendments in response to BFC Bracknell Forest Council 17 May 2018 and EA comments
Version 2.1 Further amendments in response to BFC, TWUL, AW and SEW Bracknell Forest Council 04 July 2018 comments Version 2.2 FINAL Bracknell Forest Council 10 September 2018 Version 2.3 FINAL (including further comments Bracknell Forest Council 09 October 2018 from BFC) Contract This report describes work commissioned by Bracknell Forest Council, by an email dated 11th November 2017. Bracknell Forest Council’s representatives for the contract were Marie O'Sullivan and Julia Greene. Richard Pardoe, Nathan Chapman and Paul Eccleston of JBA Consulting carried out this work.
Prepared by ...... Richard Pardoe MEng MSc Analyst
Nathan Chapman BSc Assistant Analyst
Reviewed by ...... Paul Eccleston BA CertWEM CEnv MCIWEM C.WEM Technical Director Purpose This document has been prepared as a Final Report for Bracknell Forest Council. JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to Bracknell Forest Council.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx i
Acknowledgements JBA Consulting would like to thank Bracknell Forest Council, the Environment Agency and Thames Water for their assistance in preparing this report. Copyright © Jeremy Benn Associates Limited 2018 Carbon Footprint A printed copy of the main text in this document will result in a carbon footprint of 305g if 100% post-consumer recycled paper is used and 388g if primary-source paper is used. These figures assume the report is printed in black and white on A4 paper and in duplex. JBA is aiming to reduce its per capita carbon emissions.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx ii
This page is intentionally left blank
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx iii
Executive Summary Introduction Following completion of the Phase 1 Water Cycle Study (WCS) for Bracknell Forest, JBA Consulting were commissioned in November 2017 by Bracknell Forest Council (BFC) to undertake a Phase 2 WCS in order to assess the potential issues relating to future development within Bracknell Forest and the impacts on wastewater collection and treatment, water quality and the impact of climate change on the assessments conducted. The Water Cycle Study is required to assess the constraints and requirements that will arise from potential growth on the water infrastructure. The Phase 2 WCS builds upon the Phase 1 study and, where assessments have been added to repeated, supersedes the Phase 1 study. New homes require the provision of clean water, safe disposal of wastewater and protection from flooding. The allocation of large numbers of new homes in certain locations may result in the capacity of existing available infrastructure being exceeded, a situation that could potentially cause service failures to water and wastewater customers, adverse impacts to the environment, or high costs for the upgrade of water and wastewater assets being passed on to the bill payers. In addition to increased housing demand, future climate change presents further challenges to the existing water infrastructure network, including increased intensive rainfall events and a higher frequency of drought events. Sustainable planning for water must now take this into account. The water cycle can be seen in Figure 1 below and shows how the natural and man-made processes and systems interact to collect, store or transport water in the environment. Figure 1: The Water Cycle
Source: Environment Agency – Water Cycle Study Guidance
This study will assist the council to select and develop sustainable development allocations where there is minimal impact on the environment, water quality, water resources, infrastructure, and flood risk. This has been achieved by identifying areas where there may be conflict between any proposed development, the requirements of the environment and by recommending potential solutions to these conflicts. Objectives As a WCS is not a statutory instrument, Local Planning Authorities are advised to prioritise the different phases of the WCS to integrate with their Local Plan programme. This Phase II outline study report is intended to form part of the evidence base for the Bracknell Forest Local Plan (BFLP) and to identify whether a detailed WCS is required. Specific requirements, specified by the project brief, were to:
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx iv
Provide an outline report, taking into account guidance in the NPPF, NPPG, The Water Framework Directive, The Thames River Basin Management Plan and the EA Water Cycle Study Requirements and Guidance – Thames Area (October 2016); Produce an effective water cycle study in the context of the outline phase so that: o New development takes place only within environmental constraints; o New development occurs in the most sustainable location, in relation to the water environment; o Water cycle infrastructure is in place before new development is occupied and; o Opportunities for more sustainable infrastructure options are realised. Identification of the issues and questions to be considered with regards to water quality; Gather, assess and use existing data and evidence available, in order to prepare the outline report and address specific questions; Specifically address the following questions with regard to water quality: o Can the proposed growth be accommodated at the Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs) being assessed without causing deterioration in water quality? o Will the proposed growth compromise the ability to achieve good ecological status (GES) or potential? o If growth is likely to impact on water quality, can the WWTW be upgraded to prevent any deterioration from occurring or is the permit already at current limits of technology? o Could the development cause greater than 10% deterioration in water quality? o Could the development cause deterioration in WFD class of any element? o Could the development alone prevent the receiving watercourse from reaching Good Ecological Status or Potential? Where relevant, cross reference with the replacement Strategic Flood Risk Assessment; Include the outcome of stakeholder engagement within the Outline Study, in particular, engagement with the EA and Thames Water; Establish whether a Detailed Study is required. Since the phase 1 scoping study, a number of new sites have been identified (and some removed as allocations having already received planning consent). A number of sites have also been allocated to different treatment works by Thames Water. Consequently, the assessments of wastewater network capacity and wastewater treatment capacity were updated based upon the latest site data. Assessments which concluded in phase 1 that no further assessment was required in phase 2 (odour and flood risk from additional wastewater flow) were repeated using the latest site information. The water resources and supply assessments were not affected by the change of sites and were not, therefore, updated. The odour assessment method was amended to take account of the size of the WwTW when assessing the potential extents of odour risk. Conclusions The phase 2 outline Water Cycle Study has been carried out in cooperation with Thames Water, and with the advice of the Environment Agency with respect to the water quality methodology. The overall assessment is that no strategic-scale water or wastewater constraints on growth have been identified within Bracknell Forest. Thames Water are in the process of preparing a growth study covering Bracknell Forest, but the timescale for this completing did not fit with the preparation of the Bracknell Forest Local Plan. Thames Water has, however, made sufficient assurances regarding the primary area of concern around wastewater treatment capacity at Ascot, Bracknell and Easthampstead Park to conclude that no additional Phase 3 water cycle study is required. A site-by-site summary of the results of the assessments undertaken is included in Appendix A. Development Scenarios and Policy Issues
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx v
In September 2017 the UK Government entered into a consultation entitled "Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals"1. This set out a new standard methodology to calculate a local authority's Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for new housing. This would result in an increase in Bracknell Forest Council's OAN from 635 units/year to 670 units/year, an increase of 6% or 630 homes over the 18-year plan period. Although this is yet to be adopted, BFC decided to use the higher figure within their Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan in order to ensure the robustness of their housing supply, and this WCS is based on assessing growth at that rate over the plan period. This Water Cycle Study is an assessment of the impacts of planned development within Bracknell Forest. The SHELAA and supporting documents identified 92 sites and 6 clusters, in addition to a number already in the planning process and an estimated number through windfall. Sites based in neighbouring authority areas that may use infrastructure within Bracknell Forest are also taken into account. This Water Cycle Study is key evidence for deciding the final site allocations to meet growth needs within Bracknell Forest. Legal agreements under the Town and Country Planning Act Section 106 agreement, and Community Infrastructure Levy agreements are not intended to be used to obtain funding for water or wastewater infrastructure. It is not therefore necessary for BFC to identify requirements for developers to contribute towards the cost of upgrades in its Local Plan. The Water Industry Act sets out arrangements for connections to public sewers and water supply networks, and developers should ensure that they engage at an early stage with Affinity Water, South East Water and Thames Water to ensure that site specific capacity checks can be undertaken, and where necessary, additional infrastructure is constructed to accommodate the development. From April 2018, Affinity Water, South East Water and Thames Water will no longer seek specific developer contributions towards infrastructure upgrades, but instead the costs of all infrastructure upgrades required to accommodate growth across their supply areas will be factored into the connection charges paid by all developers. Upgrades to water resources and wastewater treatment works are funded through the company's business plans. Water Resources The Phase 1 Scoping study concluded that the overall Red / Amber / Green (RAG) assessment for Bracknell Forest’s water resources is green, on the basis that there is sufficient time to address the supply demand issues identified in the next Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP). No further assessment of water resources was recommended for the Phase 2 Outline Water Cycle Study The Phase 1 WCS used the previous OAN of 635 units per annum to compare the council's planned growth with that allowed for by Affinity Water and South East Water in their WRMPs. The proposed increase in the OAN is not considered to be of a scale which would alter the conclusions of the phase 1 WCS with respect to water resources, and therefore no further analysis of water resources has been included within this phase 2 study. This conclusion has been reviewed and agreed by Affinity Water and South East Water. Following preparation of the draft Phase 2 study, Affinity Water and South East Water published their draft WRMPs (dWRMPs) for the period 2020 to 2080. The dWRMPs have not been reviewed as part of this phase 2 study. Affinity Water and South East Water have confirmed that they do not consider that there are changes in their dWRMPs which would require the WCS to be updated. Water Supply Infrastructure The Phase 1 study concluded that no additional assessments of water supply infrastructure were required within the Affinity Water or South East Water supply areas in this phase 2 outline WCS2. Wastewater Collection
1 DCLG (2017) Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals. Accessed online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation-proposals on: 30-11-2017 2 The water supply infrastructure assessment carried out for the Phase 1 WCS, including the addendum, did not cover a number of "late" sites under consideration by BFC since completion of the Phase 1 WCS. These omissions are considered to be of low consequence to the overall assessment of water supply infrastructure capacity, although, as with all development sites, early engagement between developer and water supplier is recommended to ensure that, where infrastructure upgrades are required, there is sufficient time available for these to be provided ahead of the development being occupied.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx vi
The TWUL RAG assessment prepared for this outline study considered sites with a proposal for 10 or more dwellings. Of the 713 sites assessed, 30 would require an upgrade to the sewerage network infrastructure. In 7 of these cases (SAND3, SAND5, SAND6, SAND7, WINK14, WAR3 and WINK20), major constraints have been identified by Thames Water. Sewerage upgrades will be required at all clusters, with major constraints identified by TWUL at cluster 5. Early developer engagement with TWUL is essential to ensure that, where necessary, additional capacity can be provided prior to developments becoming occupied. No further phase 3 assessment of sewerage capacity is recommended. Thames Water's assessment was a combined assessment of sewerage capacity and wastewater treatment capacity for each site. Their conclusions in relation to wastewater treatment capacity are addressed, in combination with the headroom assessment prepared by JBA, in the wastewater treatment works flow permit assessment section below. Sewerage Undertakers have a duty under Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to provide sewerage and treat wastewater arising from new domestic development. Except where strategic upgrades are required to serve very large or multiple developments, infrastructure upgrades are usually only implemented following an application for a connection, adoption, or requisition from a developer. Early developer engagement with water companies is therefore essential to ensure that sewerage capacity can be provided without delaying development. Thames Water's preferred method of surface water disposal is using a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) discharging to ground or open watercourses, with connection to the sewerage system seen as the last option. Bracknell is, however, predominantly situated on clay and therefore infiltration is unviable across most of the Borough, meaning watercourses or public sewers are the only viable means of draining a site. The overall conclusions of the Phase 1 assessment remain, that surface water should be dealt with on site and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be incorporated. The discharge hierarchy should be followed. Wastewater Treatment Works Flow Permit Assessment The assessment indicates that Ascot, Bracknell and Easthampstead Park WwTWs are all forecast to exceed their permitted dry weather flow (DWF) as a result of planned growth in the preferred sites scenario during the plan period, and indeed that Ascot did exceed its permitted DWF in 2015. In the case of Bracknell WwTW, the future exceedance is as a result of planned growth in Bracknell Forest only. In the case of Ascot and Easthampstead Park, it is as a result of planned growth in both Bracknell Forest and in neighbouring authorities. It is therefore anticipated that these three WwTWs will require capacity upgrades during the plan period. TWUL have given Ascot WwTW an "amber" assessment. Following further work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this WCS, which has confirmed that current and future flows at Ascot can be managed within their permit by converting storm tank 1 into a balancing tank, the WCS concludes that this RAG assessment is appropriate. As practically all growth planned in the Ascot catchment to 2025 is within Windsor and Maidenhead, it would be advisable to provide a copy of this study to Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council's planners. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPAs and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Ascot catchment. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified by TWUL. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPA and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Bracknell catchment.
3 Including three sites of under 10 dwellings on which Thames Water commented in their consultation response to the draft Local Plan.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx vii
TWUL's RAG assessment for the Phase 1 WCS gave Easthampstead Park a "red" score, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, and that major constraints have been identified. However, following further work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this Phase 2 WCS, TWUL have confirmed that they are working towards a capacity upgrade during AMP7 (2020 to 2025), and therefore the final RAG assessment is "amber". As the great majority of growth planned in the Easthampstead Park catchment is within Wokingham, it would be advisable to provide a copy of this study to Wokingham Borough Council's planners. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPAs and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Easthampstead Park catchment. Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both Bracknell Forest and Hart District. Billingbear WwTW is a very small works, operating at its flow capacity. There is no planned growth in this catchment, and no capacity for even minor windfall development, without a treatment works upgrade being required. Wastewater Treatment Works Odour Assessment The odour screening assessment carried out in the scoping study was repeated, to include additional sites identified since the scoping study, and using a revised method which takes into account the size of the WwTW. Results concluded that five sites and one cluster may be at risk of experiencing odour due to their proximity to existing WwTWs, and a further assessment should be conducted. All other sites are unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW Odour assessments, where the screening assessment indicates that they are required, should be undertaken by site developers. No additional assessment of odour impact is required in a Phase 3 WCS. Water Quality Impact Assessment The water quality impacts of increased effluent discharges as a result of growth at Ascot, Bracknell, Easthampstead Park and Sandhurst WwTWs, were assessed using SIMulation of CATchments (SIMCAT) water quality models. The proposed levels of growth to be treated by Ascot would not lead to a deterioration, either of 10% or of class. The Bull Brook is not currently meeting Good class for Phosphorous. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to Best Available Technology (BAT), The Cut could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. At Bracknell WwTW, increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Ammonia and Phosphate. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, The Cut could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. Increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment of Easthampstead Park WwTW are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for BOD and Ammonia. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, the Emm Brook immediately downstream of the WwTW, could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. The model indicates that Good class would not be reached at the next downstream sampling point (PLDR0015), however this is due to inflows from Ash Ridge WwTW. The impacts of growth and treatment improvements at Ash Ridge have not been investigated, as this treatment works does not serve any settlements within Bracknell Forest. At Sandhurst WwTW, increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for Ammonia and Phosphorous. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. The Blackwater is not currently meeting Good class for Phosphorous, and Good class could not be achieved due to limitations of present-day BAT. The majority of development in the catchment is made up of completions and commitments during AMP6, principally 1,000 homes at Land at former TRL site, Nine Mile Ride (SALP policy SA5).
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx viii
Consequently, the predicted deterioration may occur early during the plan period (although this has not been tested). Following completion of the water quality modelling, JBA Consulting were made aware of the Environment Agency’s updated guidance on permitting phosphorous. This guidance, based on the findings of the national programme of phosphorous removal trials, approves a new, lower TAL (Technically Achievable Limit, the new terminology for BAT) of 0.25mg/l as an annual average. The modelling has not been run using this new TAL, but it is not considered that this would fundamentally change the findings of this study. A deterioration of greater than 10% in phosphorous is predicted in The Cut downstream of Bracknell WwTW, however this can be corrected by tightening the permit within the old TAL of 0.5mg/l. The new, lower TAL could potentially enable Good classification to be achieved for phosphorous in the Blackwater, however this has not been tested. An analysis of the potential impacts of reduced river flows as a result of climate change indicate that there is a significant risk of deterioration of water quality. It is expected that future River Basin Management Plans will investigate this risk further and consider how it can be mitigated. Wherever possible, plans should promote "no-regrets" decisions which enhance the resilience of river systems to climate change impacts, for example by promoting Catchment Based Approaches. The planned growth within Bracknell Forest and its neighbouring authorities can be accommodated without causing a deterioration in water quality for sanitary determinands and nutrients, so long as timely interventions to prevent deterioration are implemented by Thames Water and the Environment Agency. Particular attention is drawn to the need to ensure that deterioration does not occur as a result of ongoing committed development in the Sandhurst catchment during AMP6 (2015-2020). The planned growth within Bracknell and its neighbouring authorities would not prevent Good class from being achieved, however Good class is not currently achievable in the Blackwater due to the limitations of present-day Phosphorous removal technologies. Flood Risk A detailed assessment of flood risk can be found within the Bracknell Forest Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (February 2018). An assessment was carried out to determine whether increased discharges of treated effluent from each WwTW due to development within Bracknell Forest could lead to an increase in fluvial flood risk from the receiving watercourse. The assessment carried out in phase 1 was repeated incorporating the additional sites identified since the scoping study, and incorporating changes made to the allocation of WwTWs to development sites. This was carried out at all the WwTW that will receive additional flows from the identified development sites, and results showed that the impact of increased effluent flows is not predicted to have a significant impact upon flood risk in any of the receiving watercourses. Increases in discharges of treated wastewater effluent as a result of growth are not expected to significantly increase flood risk. No further assessment is required in a phase 3 WCS. Environmental Constraints and Opportunities The Phase 1 study concluded that no additional assessment of environmental constraints and opportunities is required in this phase 2 outline WCS. Climate Change A qualitative assessment was carried out at phase 1 to assess the potential impacts of climate change on the assessments made within this water cycle study. The assessment used a matrix which considers both the potential impact of climate change on the assessment in question, and the degree to which climate change has been considered in the information used to make the assessments contained within the WCS. The capacity of the sewerage system and the water quality of receiving water bodies stood out as two elements of the assessment where the consequences of climate change are expected to be high, but no account had been made of climate impacts in the assessments within the scoping
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx ix
report, and hence these assessments were given a "Red" RAG assessment for climate change impacts. For this phase 2 study, no further information has been received from Thames Water describing how climate change has been taken into account in the assessment of sewerage capacity, so the conclusion from the scoping study remains that climate change poses risks of significant detrimental impacts in the operation of the sewerage systems, and the assessment prepared by Thames Water has not taken these risks into account. Climate change impacts should be taken into consideration by Thames Water as part of their ongoing assessment of the impacts of growth within Bracknell Forest. An analysis of the potential impacts of reduced river flows as a result of climate change indicate that there is a significant risk of deterioration of water quality. It is expected that future River Basin Management Plans will investigate this risk further and consider how it can be mitigated. Wherever possible, plans should promote "no-regrets" decisions which enhance the resilience of river systems to climate change impacts, for example by promoting Catchment Based Approaches. No additional assessment of the impact of climate change is recommended in a Phase 3 Detailed WCS.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx x
Contents
Executive Summary ...... iv 1 Introduction ...... 7 1.1 Terms of Reference ...... 7 1.2 The Water Cycle ...... 7 1.3 Objectives ...... 8 1.4 Study Area ...... 9 1.5 Record of Engagement ...... 9 2 Future Growth in Bracknell Forest ...... 12 2.1 Changes to the growth forecast since the Phase 1 Scoping Water Cycle Study ...... 12 2.2 Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan proposed sites...... 16 2.3 Housing trajectory ...... 17 2.4 Housing demand summary ...... 17 2.5 Employment ...... 18 2.6 Development Scenarios for the Water Cycle Study ...... 19 3 Legislative and Policy Framework ...... 22 3.1 Water Industry ...... 22 4 Wastewater Collection ...... 23 4.1 Introduction ...... 23 4.2 Sewerage Network Assessment ...... 23 5 Wastewater Treatment ...... 29 5.1 Wastewater Treatment Works in Bracknell Forest ...... 29 5.2 Wastewater Treatment Works Flow Permit Assessment ...... 30 5.3 Wastewater Treatment Works Odour Assessment ...... 41 6 Water Quality Assessment ...... 44 6.1 Introduction ...... 44 6.2 Methodology...... 44 6.3 Results ...... 48 7 Flood Risk Management ...... 51 7.1 Assessment of Additional Flood Risk from Increased WwTW Discharges ...... 51 8 Climate Change Impact Assessment ...... 53 8.1 Approach ...... 53 8.2 Water quality ...... 53 8.3 Wastewater collection and treatment ...... 54 8.4 Results summary ...... 54 8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 54 9 Summary and Recommendations ...... 56 9.1 Water Cycle Study Summary ...... 56 9.2 Timescales for implementing water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades ...... 60 9.3 Safeguarding of sites ...... 61 9.4 Recommendations ...... 61 A Appendix - Site Tracker Spreadsheet ...... I B Appendix - Water Quality Assessment ...... III
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx
List of Figures Figure 1.1: The water cycle ...... 8 Figure 2.1: Trajectory of housing delivery ...... 17 Figure 2.2: Sites Under Consideration for Development identified in Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (August 2017) with late sites included ...... 20 Figure 2.3: Location of potential and preferred site clusters in Bracknell Forest ...... 21 Figure 5.1: Wastewater Treatment Works in Bracknell Forest ...... 29 Figure 5.2: Overview of typical combined sewerage system and water recycling centre discharges ...... 30 Figure 5.3: Ascot WwTW DWF headroom forecast ...... 34 Figure 5.4: Bracknell WwTW DWF headroom forecast ...... 35 Figure 5.5: Easthampstead Park DWF WwTW headroom forecast ...... 36 Figure 5.6: Extract from Wokingham Borough Council Call for Sites Map ...... 36 Figure 5.7: Sandhurst WwTW DWF Headroom Forecast ...... 37 Figure 6.1: Water quality impact assessment following EA Thames West guidance...... 45 Figure 6.2: WFD Cycle 2 Water Quality Classifications of Watercourses in Bracknell Forest ...... 47
List of Tables Table 2-1: Outstanding commitments at 31st March 2017 (net) ...... 12 Table 2-2: Summary of Building Progress by Parish (Hard Commitments) ...... 13 Table 2-3: Parish Codes ...... 13 Table 2-4: Parish overview, estimated capacity by status (individual sites) ...... 14 Table 2-5: Parish overview, estimated capacity by locational principles (individual sites) . 14 Table 2-6: Sites included within clusters ...... 14 Table 2-7: Parish overview, estimated capacity by status (clusters) ...... 14 Table 2-8: Parish overview, estimated capacity by locational principle (clusters)...... 15 Table 2-9: Windfall analysis of small site development (less than 5units/less than 1 Ha) . 15 Table 2-10: Windfall analysis of medium site development (5-10 units/less than 1 Ha) .... 15 Table 2-11: Windfall analysis of medium site developments (10+ units/less than 1 Ha) ... 16 Table 2-12: Preferred sites ...... 16 Table 2-13: Position on housing requirements ...... 17 Table 2-14: Planning commitments for Employment Uses at 31st March 2016 (summary) ...... 18 Table 2-15: Employment estimated capacity identified ...... 18 Table 4-1: RAG assessment of foul sewerage for individual sites ...... 25 Table 4-2: RAG assessment of foul sewerage for clusters ...... 25 Table 4-3: Wastewater Collection System Assessment Actions ...... 27 Table 5-1: WwTW Environmental Permit Conditions ...... 31 Table 5-2: Calculation of growth by WwTW, commitments and potential future growth (all sites) ...... 32 2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 2
Table 5-3: Calculation of growth by WwTW, commitment and potential future growth in Preferred sites scenario ...... 32 Table 5-4: Planned growth by WwTW ...... 33 Table 5-5: Wastewater Treatment Works Flow and Quality Consent Assessment - All identified development sites ...... 38 Table 5-6: Wastewater Treatment Works Flow and Quality Consent Assessment - Preferred sites ...... 38 Table 5-7: Wastewater Treatment Works Permit Actions ...... 40 Table 5-8: Sites recommended for odour assessment ...... 42 Table 5-9: Summary of odour impact assessment ...... 42 Table 5-10: Wastewater Treatment Works Odour Actions ...... 43 Table 6-1: Summary of water quality assessment results ...... 48 Table 7-1: Summary of DWF increase as a percentage of Q30 and Q100 peak flow ...... 51 Table 7-2: Summary of Flood Risk Management Recommendations ...... 52 Table 8-1: Climate Change Pressures Scoring Matrix ...... 53 Table 8-2: Scoring of Climate Change Consequences for the Water Cycle Study ...... 54 Table 8-3: Climate Change Actions ...... 55 Table 9-1: Indicative timescales for implementing water infrastructure upgrades ...... 61 Table 9-2: All recommendations ...... 61
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 3
Abbreviations AW…………………………Affinity Water ALS ...... Abstraction Licensing Strategy AMP ...... Asset Management Plan AMR ...... Automatic Meter Reading AONB ...... Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AP ...... Assessment Point ASNW ...... Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland BAT ...... Best Available Technology BERR ...... Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform BFC…………………...…. Bracknell Forest Council BIDS ...... Business, Industrial, Distribution and Storage BOD ...... Biochemical Oxygen Demand BFLP ...... Bracknell Forest Local Plan BREEAM ...... Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology CAMS ...... Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies CAPEX ...... Capital Expenditure CE ...... Cambridge Econometrics CED ...... Common End Date CFMP ...... Catchment Flood Management Plan CfSH ...... Code for Sustainable Homes CSO ...... Combined Sewer Overflow DCLG ...... Department for Communities and Local Government DWF ...... Dry Weather Flow DWI ...... Drinking Water Inspectorate DYAA ...... Dry Year Annual Average DYCP ...... Dry Year Critical Period EA ...... Environment Agency EC ...... European Community ECA ...... European Communities Act EDNA ...... Economic Development Needs Assessment EFI ...... Ecological Flow Indicator EP ...... Environmental Permit EU ...... European Union FEH ...... Flood Estimation Handbook FFT ...... Flow to Full Treatment FWMA ...... Flood and Water Management Act
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 4
FZ ...... Flood Zone GES ...... Good Ecological Status GIS ...... Geographic Information Systems HOF ...... Hands-Off Flow HOL ...... Hands-off Level IDB ...... Internal Drainage Board IDP ...... Infrastructure Delivery Plan JBA ...... Jeremy Benn Associates LLFA ...... Lead Local Flood Authority LPA ...... Local Planning Authority l/p/d ...... Litres per person per day Ml/d ...... Mega (Million) litres per day
NH4...... Ammonia NPPF ...... National Planning Policy Framework NYAA ...... Normal Year Average Annual OAN ...... Objectively Assessed Need OfWAT ...... Water Service Regulation Authority ONS ...... Office of National Statistics OPEX ...... Operational Expenditure OS ...... Ordnance Survey P ...... Phosphorous PDL ...... Previously Developed Land PE ...... Population Equivalent p/h ...... Person per house PPS ...... Planning Policy Statement RAG ...... Red / Amber / Green assessment RBD ...... River Basin District RBMP ...... River Basin Management Plan ReFH ...... Revitalised Flood Hydrograph RNAG ...... Reason for Not Achieving Good (Status) RQP ...... River Quality Planning tool RZ ...... Resource Zone SA ...... Sustainability Appraisals SAC ...... Special Area of Conservation SANGS ...... Suitable Accessible Natural Green Space SBP ...... Strategic Business Plan SEA ...... Strategic Environmental Assessment SEPA ...... Scottish Environmental Protection Agency SEW………………………South East Water SFRA ...... Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 5
SHELAA ...... Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment SHMA ...... Strategic Housing Market Assessment SIMCAT ...... SIMulation of CATchments model SPA ...... Special Protection Area SPD ...... Supplementary Planning Document SPZ ...... Source Protection Zone SS ...... Suspended Solids SSSI ...... Site of Special Scientific Interest STW ...... Sewage Treatment Works SU ...... Sewerage Undertaker SuDS ...... Sustainable Drainage Systems SWMP ...... Surface Water Management Plan TAL ...... Technologically Achievable Limit TCAMS ...... Thames Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy TW ...... Thames Water TWUL ...... Thames Water Utilities Limited uFMfSW ...... Updated Flood Map for Surface Water UWWTD ...... Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive WaSC ...... Water and Sewerage Company WBC ...... Wokingham Borough Council WCS ...... Water Cycle Study WFD ...... Water Framework Directive WRC ...... Water Recycling Centre WRMP ...... Water Resource Management Plan WRZ ...... Water Resource Zone WQA ...... Water Quality Assessment WSZ ...... Water Supply Zone WTW ...... Water Treatment Works WwTW ...... Wastewater Treatment Works
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 6
1 Introduction
1.1 Terms of Reference JBA Consulting was commissioned by Bracknell Forest Council (BFC) to undertake a Water Cycle Study (WCS) for Bracknell Forest to inform the Bracknell Forest Local Plan (BFLP). The purpose of the Water Cycle Study along with the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) is to form part of a robust evidence base for the BFLP which will set out a vision and framework for development in the area up to 2034 and will be used to inform decisions on the location of future development. A Phase 1 study was completed in December 2017, and established that further assessment of sewerage capacity, wastewater treatment headroom, water quality and the impact of climate change are required in order to demonstrate how the impacts of growth on wastewater services and the environment can be managed and mitigated. In line with the Environment Agency (Thames Area) guidance on WCS, a Phase 2 (Outline) study is required to address these issues. In its assessment of water resources, the Phase 1 study compared current predictions of growth with those used in the 2014 Water Resource Management Plans. Forecast household growth within Affinity Water's Water Resource Zone 6 - WRZ6 (29%) is significantly higher than allowed for in the WRMP (20%). The WCS concluded, however, that that there is sufficient time to address the supply demand issues identified in the next WRMP. Latest forecasts of household growth within South East Water's WRZ4 (23%) are slightly lower than allowed for in the WRMP (27%). Consequently, no further assessment of water resources was considered necessary in this Phase 2 Outline Water Cycle Study. The Phase 1 study also concluded that no further assessment of water supply capacity or environmental constraints and opportunities was required in the Phase 2 study. Assessments for odour from wastewater treatment works, and flood risk from additional foul flow all concluded that no further assessment was required in an outline study. However, as new sites have been identified since the scoping study, and some clarification of Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) allocations have been received, it was decided to repeat these assessments, using the latest methodology and data where applicable.
1.2 The Water Cycle
1.2.1 What is a Water Cycle Study (WCS)? National Planning Policy Framework Practice Guidance on Water Supply, Wastewater and Water Quality4 describes a water cycle study as: "a voluntary study that helps organisations work together to plan for sustainable growth. It uses water and planning evidence and the expertise of partners to understand environmental and infrastructure capacity. It can identify joined up and cost-effective solutions, that are resilient to climate change for the lifetime of the development. The study provides evidence for Local Plans and sustainability appraisals and is ideally done at an early stage of plan-making. Local authorities (or groups of local authorities) usually lead water cycle studies, as a chief aim to provide evidence for sound Local Plans, but other partners often include the Environment Agency and water companies." The Environment Agency's guidance on WCS5 recommends a phased approach: Phase 1: Scoping study, focussing on formation of a steering group, identifying issues for consideration and the need for an outline study. Phase 2: Outline study, to identify environmental constraints, infrastructure constraints, a sustainability assessment and consideration of whether a detailed study is required.
4 Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) Planning Practice Guidance: Water supply, wastewater and water quality. Accessed online at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/ on: 19/12/2017 5 Environment Agency (2009) Water Cycle Study Guidance, accessed online at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho0109bpff-e-e.pdf on: 19/12/2017
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 7
Phase 3: Detailed study, to identify infrastructure requirements, when they are required, how they will be funded and implemented and an overall assessment of the sustainability of proposed infrastructure. Figure 1.1 below shows the main elements that compromise the Water Cycle and shows how the natural and man-made processes and systems interact to collect, store or transport water in the environment.
Figure 1.1: The water cycle
1.2.2 Impacts of Development on the Water Cycle New homes require the provision of clean water, safe disposal of wastewater and protection from flooding. It is possible that allocating large numbers of new homes at some locations may result in the capacity of the existing available infrastructure being exceeded. This situation could potentially lead to service failures to water and wastewater customers, have adverse impacts on the environment or cause the high cost of upgrading water and wastewater assets being passed on to bill payers. Climate change presents further challenges such as increased intensity and frequency of rainfall and a higher frequency of drought events that can be expected to put greater pressure on the existing infrastructure.
1.3 Objectives As a WCS is not a statutory instrument, Local Planning Authorities are advised to prioritise the different phases of the WCS to integrate with their Local Plan programme. This Phase 2 outline study report is intended to form part of the evidence base for the BFLP and to identify whether a detailed WCS is required. Specific requirements, specified by the project brief, were to: Provide an outline report, taking into account guidance in the NPPF, NPPG, The Water Framework Directive, The Thames River Basin Management Plan and the EA Water Cycle Study Requirements and Guidance – Thames Area (October 2016); Produce an effective water cycle study in the context of the outline phase so that: o New development takes place only within environmental constraints; o New development occurs in the most sustainable location, in relation to the water environment; o Water cycle infrastructure is in place before new development is occupied and; o Opportunities for more sustainable infrastructure options are realised. Identification of the issues and questions to be considered with regards to water quality; Gather, assess and use existing data and evidence available, in order to prepare the outline report and address specific questions; Specifically address the following questions with regard to water quality: o Can the proposed growth be accommodated at the WwTWs being assessed without causing deterioration in water quality?
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 8
o Will the proposed growth compromise the ability to achieve good ecological status (GES) or potential? o If growth is likely to impact on water quality, can the WwTW be upgraded to prevent any deterioration from occurring or is the permit already at current limits of technology? o Could the development cause greater than 10% deterioration in water quality? o Could the development cause deterioration in WFD class of any element? o Could the development alone prevent the receiving watercourse from reaching Good Ecological Status or Potential? Where relevant, cross reference with the replacement Strategic Flood Risk Assessment; Include the outcome of stakeholder engagement within the Outline Study, in particular, engagement with the EA and Thames Water; Establish whether a Detailed Study is required. Since the phase 1 scoping study, a number of new sites have been identified (and some removed as allocations having already received planning consent). A number of sites have also been allocated to different treatment works by Thames Water. For this reason, assessments which concluded in phase 1 that no further assessment was required in phase 2 (odour and flood risk from additional wastewater flow) are repeated using the latest site information. Environmental constraints and the water resources and supply assessments were not affected.
1.4 Study Area This WCS outline report has been written for Bracknell Forest Council and includes the parishes of Bracknell, Ascot, Binfield, Crowthorne, Sandhurst and Winkfield. There are two main rivers within Bracknell Forest: The Cut and Blackwater River. The Cut to the north of Bracknell is fed by the several small brooks running through Bracknell itself and eventually meets the Thames 3km north of Bracknell Forest. The River Blackwater forms the southern boundary of Bracknell Forest and is fed by several brooks in the Sandhurst area. This joins the River Loddon and eventually the River Thames. Numerous other small watercourses are present on the edge of Bracknell Forest. Water supply services for Bracknell Forest are split between Affinity Water (AW) and South East Water (SEW), and wastewater services are provided by Thames Water.
1.5 Record of Engagement
1.5.1 Introduction Preparation of a water cycle study requires significant engagement with stakeholders both within the Local Planning Authority, with water and wastewater utilities, with the Environment Agency and, where there may be cross-boundary issues, with neighbouring local authorities. This section forms a record of engagement for the Phase 2 WCS. Engagement undertaken prior to this is documented in the Phase 1 report.
1.5.2 Outline study engagement The preparation of outline study was supported by the following engagement in addition to that documented in the scoping study:
Identifying and obtaining the latest water quality impact models, September 2017 Environment Agency Engaged Surrey Heath Council and their consultants AECOM parties JBA Consulting Identified and obtained the most recently updated version of the River Blackwater Details SIMCAT model, which had been updated by AECOM for the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Water Cycle Study.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 9
Inception teleconference, 16/11/2017 Bracknell Forest Council Thames Water Engaged parties Environment Agency (unable to attend but discussed over a telephone call later that day) JBA Consulting Aims of Phase 2 WCS General approach Details Data requirements Programme Prior to the meeting the proposed methodology was shared with the stakeholders and their comments were taken into account.
Bracknell Forest Local Plan & Thames Water liaison meeting, 22/11/2017 Bracknell Forest Council Engaged Thames Water parties JBA Consulting Bracknell Forest Draft Local Plan discussed Details Update on TW infrastructure
Request for information from water and sewerage utilities, 13/12/2017
Engaged Thames Water parties JBA Consulting
A letter was sent to Thames Water, requesting the following information:
Wastewater Collection Request for a site-by-site assessment of foul sewer and surface water network capacity and constraints.
Wastewater treatment Headroom capacity assessment available for Ascot, Bracknell, Easthampstead and Sandhurst WwTWs. Identify any significant known constraints which could make provision of Details additional treatment capacity technically difficult, more expensive and/or more time consuming at specific works, for example land constraints, odour issues due to encroachment of development etc. Water quality Specific comments about the feasibility of meeting tighter permit conditions at Ascot, Bracknell, Easthampstead and Sandhurst WwTW. Safeguarding sites Are there any significant sites for strategic infrastructure development within Bracknell Forest which you require to be safeguarded from future development in the Local Plan? If so, please provide site outlines. Queries relating to Thames Water's responses were addressed in subsequent email and telephone communications.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 10
Review of 1st draft Outline Phase 2 Water Cycle Study, February 2018
Engaged Bracknell Forest Council parties JBA Consulting
Invited to review 1st draft report. Comments have been addressed in the 2nddraft Details phase 2 report.
Review of 2nd draft Outline Phase 2 Water Cycle Study, April 2018 Bracknell Forest Council Thames Water Affinity Water Engaged parties South East Water JBA Consulting The Environment Agency were not engaged during Phase 2 as LPA had not entered into EA payment schedule agreement.
Invited to review 2nd draft report. Comments have been addressed in the final Details phase 2 report.
Conference call with Environment Agency 20/04/2018 Bracknell Forest Council Engaged Environment Agency parties JBA Consulting The Environment Agency had submitted comments on the Phase 1 Scoping Water Cycle Study, as part of their consultation response to the draft Local Plan. The majority of these points had already been considered within the draft Phase 2 Outline Water Cycle Study. There was a discussion on representing climate change in water quality modelling, which has been commented on in this final Details version (section 8.2).
The discussion also covered the use of a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between Bracknell Forest Council and Thames Water. EA confirmed their acceptance in principal, assuming that the SoCG contains sufficient detail and commitments. EA confirmed they would review a draft SoCG.
Conference call with Thames Water 05/07/2018 Bracknell Forest Council Engaged Environment Agency parties JBA Consulting The purpose of the meeting was to review the conclusions of the final draft Phase 2 WCS, with a focus on the primary area of concern regarding wastewater treatment capacity at Ascot, Bracknell and Easthampstead Park WwTWs. Discussion initially focussed on whether it would be necessary to prepare a Statement of Common Ground between BFC and TWUL in order to cover the treatment capacity issues. It was agreed that, if TWUL could provide additional Details information regarding their ongoing investigations and emerging plans for these works, that this be added to the final WCS, thus making a separate SoCG unnecessary.
Following the meeting, TWUL provided additional information that was included in this report, and it was agreed that a SoCG would not be required.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 11
2 Future Growth in Bracknell Forest
2.1 Changes to the growth forecast since the Phase 1 Scoping Water Cycle Study
2.1.1 Objectively Assessed Need In September 2017 the UK Government entered into a consultation entitled "Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals"6. This set out a new standard methodology to calculate a local authority's Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for new housing. This would result in an increase in Bracknell Forest Council's OAN from 635 units/year to 670 units/year, an increase of 6% or 630 homes over the 18-year plan period. Although this is yet to be adopted, BFC decided to use the higher figure within their Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan in order to ensure the robustness of their housing supply. The Phase 1 WCS used the previous OAN of 635 units per annum to compare the council's planned growth with that allowed for by Affinity Water and South East Water in their Water Resource Management Plans (WRMPs). The proposed increase in the OAN is not considered to be of a scale which would alter the conclusions of the phase 1 WCS with respect to water resources, and therefore no further analysis of water resources has been included within this phase 2 study, and this WCS is based on assessing growth at that rate over the plan period.
2.1.2 Availability of Land for Housing The Draft SHELAA (November 2016 v2) used in the scoping study was updated and published as a final assessment in August 20177. A total of 86 sites and 6 clusters were included, with sites granted planning permission between the draft and final assessment being removed. It also includes the additional sites identified in Addendum 1 to the Phase 1 WCS Scoping Study. Addendum 1 also assessed Cluster 7 which was identified in the Warfield Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 Pre-Submission Plan8. Whilst it overlaps with Cluster 4, Cluster 7 does not feature in the SHELAA (August 2017), but is included in this Phase II study. Since Addendum 1, a further site (Wink 21) has been granted planning permission so has also been removed. This has caused Cluster 6 to cease to exist. 7 additional sites have also been added. The Planning Commitments for Housing at March 20179 gives details of the number of dwellings currently committed – see Table 2-1 below. A detailed breakdown is contained in Table 2-2. Table 2-1: Outstanding commitments at 31st March 2017 (net)
Soft (Development Site Size Hard10 Soft (S.106) identified in an adopted Local Plan)
6 DCLG (2017) Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals. Accessed online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation-proposals on: 30-11-2017 7 Bracknell Forest Council (2017) Final Draft Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA): Part 2 Results (Aug 2017). This file can be downloaded from: https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/planning-and-building- control/planning/planning-policy/draft-bracknell-forest-local-plan/evidence-base (Accessed on 16/04/2018). 8 Warfield Parish Council (2017) Warfield Neighbourhood Plan 2016 - 2036 Pre-submission Plan. Accessed online at: http://www.warfield-np.org.uk/images/PreSubmission/Warfield%20Pre-Submission_Publish_2.pdf on: 30/11/2017 9 Bracknell Forest Council (2017) Planning Commitments for Housing at 2017: Accessed online at: https://files.bracknell- forest.gov.uk/sites/bracknell/documents/planning-commitments-for-housing.pdf?O7680BVYO32fPpdRa2V0eA60ej7O26q6 on: 30/11/2017 10 There are two types of commitment. These are: Hard commitment - dwellings on a site which has the benefit of a valid planning permission. Soft commitment - dwellings on a site which has no formal planning permission, but which has been identified in principle as being suitable for development. Soft commitments are further divided into two categories: a site where the principle of development has been accepted through a formal resolution of the local planning authority, but where the signing of a legal agreement is awaited before planning permission is issued; and, a site which had been identified in a Local Plan (for example, Site Allocations Local Plan) but which has yet to receive planning permission. Sites identified through the Local Plan process are only included when the document has been adopted.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 12
Soft (Development Site Size Hard10 Soft (S.106) identified in an adopted Local Plan)
1 ha or over (large sites) 2,940 571 3024
Under 1 ha, over 10 units (medium) 815 240 175
Under 1 ha, under 10 units (small) 94 1 0
Total 3,849 812 3,199
Source: Bracknell Forest Council (2017), Planning Commitments for Housing at March 2017
Table 2-2: Summary of Building Progress by Parish (Hard Commitments)
Under 1 Under 1 ha, Soft Completions 1 ha or over ha, 10+ under com units
10 units
Parish
at 31st Mar
'17
New Build New Demolitions COU / conversion Net Under construction. started Not Under construction. started Not Under construction started Not Binfield 166 -3 1 164 27 802 4 0 10 4 1,025 Bracknell 61 -31 91 121 322 38 331 350 11 3 928 Crowthorne 5 -2 23 26 0 1,036 32 19 0 7 444 Sandhurst 17 -10 1 8 0 0 15 50 8 6 125 Warfield 107 -3 1 105 215 447 0 0 6 7 1,378 Winkfield 15 -8 6 13 11 42 14 0 9 23 111 Total 371 -57 123 437 575 2,365 396 419 44 50 4,071 Source: Bracknell Forest Council (2017), Planning Commitments for Housing at March 2017 COU = Change of Use, COM = Commitments
Sites have been given the following codes designating their parish: Table 2-3: Parish Codes
Parish Code Parish Code
Binfield BIN Sandhurst SAND
Bracknell BRA Warfield WAR
Crowthorne CROW Winkfield WINK
2.1.3 Capacity in Individual Sites The SHELAA (August 2017) assessment of sites in relation to use class C3 indicates a potential total capacity of 9,008 dwellings (with additional 55611 dwellings on the 7 sites identified after publication of the SHELAA), an increase from the 8,812 dwellings assessed in the scoping report.
11 The figure of 556 was provided by Bracknell Forest Council as an estimated capacity for these sites
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 13
Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 gives a summary of the estimated capacity broken down by parish and locational principle. Most sites assessed are greenfield (88%), and 69% are within the countryside. Table 2-4: Parish overview, estimated capacity by status (individual sites)
Parish PDL Greenfield Total Binfield 35 1,036 1,071 Bracknell 723 1,326 2,049 Crowthorne 0 0 0 Sandhurst 0 692 692 Warfield 28 2,518 2,546 Winkfield 84 2,566 2,650 Total 875 7,764 9,008 Source: Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (Aug 2017) Table 2-5: Parish overview, estimated capacity by locational principles (individual sites)
Green Parish Settlement Countryside Total Belt Binfield 0 1,071 0 1,071 Bracknell 868 1,181 0 2,049 Crowthorne 0 0 0 0 Sandhurst 0 692 0 692 Warfield 23 1,280 1,243 2,546 Winkfield 7 2,082 561 2,650 Total 898 6,305 1,804 9,008 Source: Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (Aug 2017)
2.1.4 Capacity in Clustered Sites A number of the submitted sites are located adjacent to one another, forming “clusters” (Table 2-6). Once the identified sites are combined as clusters, the capacity for Use Class C3 increases by 319 units. Cluster 7, Identified in the Warfield Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 Pre-Submission Plan, largely overlaps with Cluster 4. Table 2-6: Sites included within clusters Cluster Sites included Cluster 1 BIN7, BIN8, BIN9, BIN10, BIN11 Cluster 2 BRA1, BRA2 Cluster 3 BRA3, BRA4 Cluster 4 WAR11, WAR12, WAR13, WAR14, WAR15, WAR16 Cluster 5 WINK13, WINK14 Cluster 7 WAR13, WAR14, WAR15, WAR16, WAR22
Table 2-7: Parish overview, estimated capacity by status (clusters)
Parish PDL Greenfield Total Binfield 35 1,129 1,164 Bracknell 723 1,470 2,193 Crowthorne 0 0 0 Sandhurst 0 692 692 Warfield 28 2,542 2,570 Winkfield 84 2,624 2,708
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 14
Total 870 8,457 9,327 Source: Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (Aug 2017)
Table 2-8: Parish overview, estimated capacity by locational principle (clusters)
Parish Settlement Countryside Green Belt Total Binfield 0 1,164 0 1,164 Bracknell 868 1,325 0 2,193 Crowthorne 0 0 0 0 Sandhurst 0 692 0 692 Warfield 23 1,304 1,243 2,570 Winkfield 7 2,140 561 2,708 Total 898 6,625 1,804 9,327 Source: Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (Aug 2017)
2.1.5 Windfall Capacity Windfall sites are those sites that are not specifically identified in the local plan. The SHELAA (August 2017) does not include sites with a capacity of less than 5 dwellings. Furthermore, larger sites may become available for development unexpectedly. An analysis of historic data was carried out to establish the likely contribution to capacity from these developments. In-fill in residential gardens was excluded from the analysis. The tables below include the 2016-17 data published in August 2017 and are an update on the tables provided in the scoping study. Table 2-9: Windfall analysis of small site development (less than 5units/less than 1 Ha)
Net completions Total net completions Period Total net completions involving in-fill on excluding residential residential gardens garden in-fill 2007-08 10 5 5 2008-09 6 3 3 2009-10 3 - 3 2010-11 26 13 13 2011-12 15 7 8 2012-13 27 4 23 2013-14 12 7 5 2014-15 30 3 27 2015-16 31 6 25 2016-17 37 9 28 Total 197 57 140 Average over 10 19.7 5.7 14 years Source: Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (August 2017)
Table 2-10: Windfall analysis of medium site development (5-10 units/less than 1 Ha)
Net completions Total net completions Period Total net completions involving in-fill on excluding residential garden residential gardens in-fill 2007-08 25 - 25 2008-09 7 - 7 2009-10 5 - 5 2010-11 15 - 15 2011-12 5 - 5
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 15
Net completions Total net completions Period Total net completions involving in-fill on excluding residential garden residential gardens in-fill 2012-13 5 -2 7 2013-14 -16 7 -23 2014-15 22 6 16 2015-16 49 6 43 2016-17 31 9 22 Total 148 26 122 Average over 10 14.8 2.60 12.20 years Source: Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (August 2017) Table 2-11: Windfall analysis of medium site developments (10+ units/less than 1 Ha)
Net completions Total net completions Period Total net completions involving in-fill on excluding residential residential gardens garden in-fill 2007-08 54 33 21 2008-09 95 27 68 2009-10 12 12 - 2010-11 42 42 - 2011-12 9 11 -2 2012-13 100 18 82 2013-14 16 - 16 2014-15 74 - 74 2015-16 15 -8 23 2016-17 121 35 86 Total 538 170 368 Average over 10 53.80 17.00 36.80 years Source: Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (August 2017) Based on the three tables above, an allowance of 62 units per year has been assumed in future land supply calculations12.
2.2 Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan proposed sites The sites listed in Table 2.11 set out the sites for inclusion in the Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan, in order to meet the Council's objectively assessed need. Table 2-12: Preferred sites Site Potential Dwelling Site Potential Dwelling Capacity Capacity BIN1 45 BRA13 69 BIN5 40 BRA14 144 BIN6 34 BRA15 267 BIN7 5 SAND5 217 BIN10 13 WAR9 33 BIN11 22 WAR10 96
12 Bracknell Forest Council (2017) Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA): Part 2 Results (August 2017). This file can be downloaded from: https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/planning-and-building- control/planning/planning-policy/draft-bracknell-forest-local-plan/evidence-base (Accessed on 16/04/2018).
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 16
Site Potential Dwelling Site Potential Dwelling Capacity Capacity BIN12 8 CLUSTER7 235 CLUSTER3 570 CLUSTER5 500 BRA6 67 WINK15 48 BRA7 200 WINK20 278 BRA11 212 WINK22 450 BRA12 92 WINK34 6 Total 3,651 Source: Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan (February 2018)
2.3 Housing trajectory Understanding the likely trajectory of housing growth over the plan period is important when considering the capacity of water and wastewater infrastructure, and the time required to deliver any necessary infrastructure upgrades. BFC has prepared an analysis of housing trajectory; this is shown graphically in Figure 2.1. The current trajectory forecasts the greatest growth between 2030 and 2032.
Sources: Large and medium sites, BFC Housing Trajectory tables supplied 02/01/2018. Windfall sites, delivery assumed to be at a constant rate throughout the plan period. Figure 2.1: Trajectory of housing delivery
2.4 Housing demand summary Over the new plan period 2016/2017-2033/34 Bracknell Forest will need to accommodate 12,060 new homes (based on an objective assessment of housing need of 670 dwellings per annum). The following table shows (as at 31 March 2017), what has already been achieved, and what still needs to be planned for in relation to housing (C3 use): Table 2-13: Position on housing requirements
Achieved by 31 March 2017 437 Homes completed in 2016/17 Homes with planning permission (large and medium sites) Plus 3,755 (excludes windfall allowance) Large and medium sites already allocated, but without Plus 4,010 permission (3,199) and homes subject to legal agreements (811) Small sites windfall allowance of 14 homes per year for Plus 934 the period 2017/18 to 2033/34 i.e. 17yrs = 238 homes
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 17
S Medium sites windfall allowance of 48 homes per year o for the period 2020/21 to 2033/34 = 14 years = 672 u r and 24 homes for 2019/20. c Total medium allowance – 696 homes e : = 9,136 Still required for the period 2016/2017-2033/34 T a Requirement over total plan period: b l 12,060 e Using indicative assessment Objective Assessment of Need for housing (670 x 18 = 12,060) i In summary n c How many new homes needed for the 12,060 l period 2016/2017 to 2033/34 u d How many homes BFC have already e found sites for (including windfall 9,136 d allowance)
Amount outstanding assuming all the i = 2,924 n above come forward (minimum figure)
t (10% or 292 homes = 3,216) h Including flexibility allowance e draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan (2018) Note that sites BIN8, BIN13 and SAND5 fall partially within Wokingham Borough.
2.5 Employment
2.5.1 Employment Capacity Planning commitments for Employment Uses13 at 31st March 2016 shows that there was a net loss in floor space of 31,677 m2 for business, industrial, distribution and storage (BIDS) in the year leading up to March 2016 as a result of completions. New permissions granted resulted in a loss of 3,955 m2, outstanding hard commitments were 3,052 m2. Table 2-14: Planning commitments for Employment Uses at 31st March 2016 (summary)
New Outstanding at 31st Completions permissions March 2016 Land 1st April- 1st April- Type 31st March 2 31st March 2016 (m ) 2 Hard Soft 2016 (m ) Greenfield 176 176 37,571 0 Brownfield -31,853 -4,131 -34,519 -14,263 Total -31,677 -3,955 3,052 -14,263 Source: Bracknell Forest Planning Commitments for Employment Uses at 31st March 2016 (Republished as v3 July 2017)
The SHELAA (Part 2: Results August 2017) estimates a capacity of 55,980m2 of employment use floor space from suggested sites, although 18,100m2 of this is as an alternative to Use Class C3. There is also a 465m2 area designated as D1 use. Table 2-15: Employment estimated capacity identified
Usage Area (m2) Development Ref.
D1 465 BIN10
BIN14, BRA7, BRA11, BRA12, BRA13, B1 or B8 37,880 BRA14, BRA15
13 Bracknell Forest Council (2017) Planning Commitments for Employment Uses at 31st March 2016 Version 3 - Republished July 2017. Accessed online at: https://files.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/sites/bracknell/documents/planning-commitments-for-employment- uses-at-march-2016.pdf?SUheo_cqSZUaC9Mgr4nqcepGmOX.8rEA on: 20/12/2017.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 18
B1 or B8 as alternative to C3 18,100 BIN4, WINK6 use Source: Information provided in Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (August 2017)
2.6 Development Scenarios for the Water Cycle Study
2.6.1 Principles The assessments of the impacts of growth on the water environment and water and wastewater infrastructure were based on the following principles: Existing completions and commitments should have already been known about by the water and wastewater providers through engagement with the planning system and through developer engagement, however the impact on future services and the environment were based on a combination of existing commitments and new allocations. Therefore, the WCS has focussed on potential future allocations, but also takes into account existing completions and commitments, for example where assessing the future volumetric capacity and environmental capacity at a wastewater treatment works. The EDNA scenarios for employment growth in Bracknell Forest present a wide range of possible scenarios based on different calculation methods. Recent completions and commitments indicate a trend towards change of use from employment to residential, and a net reduction in employment floorspace. In most cases, residential use puts a higher demand per hectare of developed land on water and wastewater services than employment use, the exception being where high water using employment is being planned. Where the likely future use was known to be housing or employment, a suitable water demand was calculated for that use. Where the likely use of the site was unknown, or where the site was likely to be for mixed use development but the split between housing and employment was unknown, the water demand for development sites was based on residential usage. On mixed-use sites this tends to give an overall conservative assessment of demand. Where a cluster is considered, its constituent sites are removed from the analysis to avoid duplication. For the purposes of the outline study, two scenarios will be analysed. One in which all of the sites identified are adopted, and one in which BFC’s preferred site list is adopted. In both scenarios, existing housing commitments, windfall sites and demand from outside the BFC area will be included to ensure demand on each WwTW is accurately represented. Appendix A contains a description of all the sites included.
2.6.2 The Importance of Scale The Water Cycle Study requires development data at three spatial scales: 1. Water Resource Zone scale An assessment of water resource capacity was prepared at the Water Resource Zone (WRZ) scale for the Phase 1 WCS, based on Department for Communities and Local Government household growth forecasts (DCLG). It was found that there was sufficient time to address supply and demand issues identified in the WRMPs and on that basis no further assessment of water resource capacity was carried out in this phase 2 study. 2. Settlement / Wastewater catchment scale Affinity Water and South East Water were asked to assess the capacity of their water supply networks at a settlement scale for the Phase 1 WCS. This found that, whilst upgrades may be required in some cases to supply all of the sites, there were no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure. On that basis no further assessment of water supply infrastructure was carried out in this phase 2 study. As part of the phase 2 outline study, Thames Water were asked to assess treatment capacity at the four WwTWs serving Bracknell Forest (excluding Billingbear). Growth forecasts for each catchment were calculated using the sites identified in the SHELAA Part 2: Results (August 2017), late sites supplied by BFC and the Warfield Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 Pre-Submission Plan, in addition to the already committed sites and windfall sites over the plan period.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 19
3. Site scale The assessment of the impact of growth on sewerage systems needs to be carried out on individual sites or clusters of sites. Mapping showing the distribution of potential sites has been provided to Thames Water to assist their assessments.
2.6.3 Collation of development sites for further study To enable the analysis required in the study, the development sites identified were added to an Excel spreadsheet, with additional information about their proposed use, area and capacity. This is attached as Appendix A. Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show the location of sites and clusters, with the preferred sites shown in a darker shade. Please note that in some cases (e.g. cluster 5), only part of the area of the site/cluster shown has been selected as a preferred site in the Bracknell Forest Local Plan and that Cluster 4 and 7 overlap.
Figure 2.2: Sites Under Consideration for Development identified in Bracknell Forest SHELAA Part 2: Results (August 2017) with late sites included
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 20
Figure 2.3: Location of potential and preferred site clusters in Bracknell Forest
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 21
. 3 Legislative and Policy Framework The Phase 1 WCS reviews the relevant national, regional and local policies that must be considered by the LPAs, water companies and developers during the planning stage. This section provides an update for those aspects which have changed since the Phase 1 study was prepared.
3.1 Water Industry
3.1.1 Changes to charging rules for new connections OfWAT, the water industry's economic regulator, has published new rules covering how water and wastewater companies may charge customers for new connections14. These rules apply to all companies in England and will commence on 1st April 2018. Thames Water, Affinity Water and South East Water have set out their proposed responses and will publish their 2018 charges by 1st February 2018. The key changes include: More charges will be fixed and published on water company websites. This will provide greater transparency to developers and will also allow alternative connection providers to offer competitive quotations more easily. There will be a fixed infrastructure charge for water and one for wastewater. The costs of network reinforcement will no longer be charged directly to the developer in their connection charges. Instead, the combined costs of all of the works required on a company's networks, over a five-year rolling period, will be covered by the infrastructure charges payed for all new connections. The definition of network reinforcement has changed and will now apply only to works required as a direct consequence of the increased demand due to a development. Where the water company has not been notified of a specific development, for example when developing long-term strategic growth schemes, the expenditure cannot be recovered through infrastructure charges. Suppliers may consider offering charging incentives to encourage environmentally sustainable development, for example for the provision of rainwater harvesting. Thames Water is not proposing any such incentives in 2018/19 but is proposing further engagement with customers on this issue.
14 OfWAT (2017) Charging rules for new connection services (English undertakers). Accessed online at: https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/publication/charging-rules-new-connection-services-english-undertakers/ on: 19/01/2018.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 22
4 Wastewater Collection
4.1 Introduction Thames Water is the Sewerage Undertaker (SU) for Bracknell Forest. The role of sewerage undertaker includes the collection and treatment of wastewater from domestic and commercial premises, and in some areas, it also includes the drainage of surface water from building curtilages to combined or surface water sewers. It excludes, unless adopted by Thames Water, systems that do not connect directly to the wastewater network, e.g. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) or highway drainage. At present, Thames Water do not adopt most forms of SuDS systems, however they will adopt conventional piped surface water drainage systems downstream of private or third-party SuDS, where these drain the building curtilage. However, the emerging Sewers for Adoption version 815 is expected to enable water companies to adopt SuDS components where these are primarily constructed for drainage of buildings and yards, they have a channel and convey flow to an effective outfall. This could see components such as Swales, detention basins, ponds and soakaways being adopted by Thames Water in the future. Increased wastewater flows into collection systems due to growth in populations or per-capita consumption can lead to an overloading of the infrastructure, increasing the risk of sewer flooding and, where present, increasing the frequency of discharges from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). Likewise, headroom at Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) can be eroded by growth in population or per-capita consumption, requiring investment in additional treatment capacity. As the volumes of treated effluent rises, even if the effluent quality is maintained, the pollutant load discharged to the receiving watercourse will increase. In such circumstances the Environment Agency as the environmental regulator, may tighten effluent consents to achieve a "load standstill", i.e. ensuring that as effluent volume increases, the pollutant discharged does not increase. Again, this would require investment by the water company to improve the quality of the treated effluent. In combined sewerage systems, or foul systems with surface water misconnections, there is potential to create headroom in the system, thus enabling additional growth, by the removal of surface water connections. This can most readily be achieved during the redevelopment of brownfield sites which have combined sewerage systems, where there is potential to discharge surface waters via sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) to groundwater, watercourses or surface water sewers. In some rural areas of Bracknell, there are known issues of surface water drainage to foul-only systems, possibly as a result of misconnections or failure of soakaways. Strategic schemes to provide improved local surface water drainage may be required in such areas, rather than solely relying upon on-site soakaways on brownfield or infill plots.
4.2 Sewerage Network Assessment New residential developments add pressure to the existing sewerage systems. An assessment is required to identify the available capacity within the existing systems, and the potential to upgrade overloaded systems to accommodate future growth. The scale and cost of upgrading works may vary significantly depending upon the location of the development in relation to the network itself and the receiving WwTW. It may be the case that an existing sewerage system is already working at its full capacity and further investigations have to be carried out to define which solution is necessary to implement an increase in its capacity. New infrastructure may be required if, for example, a site is not served by an existing system. Such new infrastructure will normally be secured through private third-party agreements between the developer and utility provider. Sewerage Undertakers must consider the growth in demand for wastewater services when preparing their five-yearly Strategic Business Plans (SBPs) which set out investment for the next Asset Management Plan (AMP) period. Typically, investment is committed to provide new or upgraded sewerage capacity to support allocated growth with a high certainty of being delivered. Additional sewerage capacity to service windfall sites, smaller infill development or to connect a
15 Water UK (2017) Sewers for Adoption - Revised Principles Paper. Accessed online at https://www.water.org.uk/publications/policy-positions-and-briefings/sewers-adoption on 09/07/2018
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 23
site to the sewerage network across third party land is normally funded via developer contributions, as third-party arrangements between the developer and utility provider.
4.2.1 Methodology In the phase 1 scoping study, Thames Water provided separate assessments of sewerage network capacity and WwTW flow capacity for the cluster sites only. A WwTW flow capacity score was assigned to individual sites based on the WwTW they were allocated to. No sewerage network capacity assessment was conducted for individual sites. In this phase 2 outline study, Thames Water were provided with a list of the sites and potential housing numbers. Using this information Thames Water assessed each site using the range of datasets they hold, taking into account, where known, existing flows from foul sewage, direct surface water connections and groundwater infiltration. Sites with fewer than 10 new housing units were not assessed. The impact of the development of sites both on their own and cumulatively (accounting for all sites, not just preferred sites) was considered. Two sites (BRA3 and BRA4, which together are Cluster 3) were assigned to Bracknell WwTW in the phase 1 scoping study. At phase 2, Thames Water has advised that it would be more appropriate for these sites to connect to the Easthampstead Park WwTW based on their proximity to the WwTW. Thames Water used the following red / amber / green traffic light definition to score each site:
Infrastructure and/or treatment Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to upgrades will be required to Capacity available to serve the serve proposed growth, but no serve proposed growth. Major proposed growth significant constraints to the constraints have been provision of this infrastructure identified. have been identified
A RAG score was assigned to each site based on a combined assessment of both sewerage network capacity and WwTW flow capacity. In some cases, comments provided by TWUL made it clear whether the RAG score related to foul sewerage capacity, wastewater treatment capacity, or both, however in some cases no comments were provided. Clarifications were requested but were not available for all sites at the point of publication of this study. Thames Water has also provided site specific comments on wastewater infrastructure in response to the Bracknell Forest Draft Local Plan consultation. Where relevant these have been added to Appendix A and used to inform the sewerage network capacity assessment. In order to provide an overall assessment of foul sewerage capacity, JBA reviewed the RAG score for each site based upon: the combined foul sewerage/wastewater treatment RAG assessment and comments provided for individual sites by TWUL, the separate foul sewerage/wastewater treatment RAG assessment and comments provided for clusters by TWUL, TWUL's responses to the Draft Local Plan Consultation, and JBA's assessment of WwTW capacity (see section 5), used to help identify where the TWUL RAG assessment may have related to wastewater treatment capacity only. Site clusters take the worst-case score from any of the sites that make up the cluster to give the overall score. So, for example, if a cluster were to be made up of two sites rated "Amber" and one rated "Red", an overall score of "Red" was given to that cluster. Where a RAG assessment score was consequently adjusted by JBA, this is explained in Appendix A.
4.2.2 Data Collection The datasets used to assess the sewerage system capacity are the following: Site locations in GIS format (provided by Bracknell Forest Council) Site tracker spreadsheet (see Appendix A)
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 24
4.2.3 Results Foul sewerage Table 4-1: below summarises the results of the RAG assessment of foul sewerage. Table 4-1: RAG assessment of foul sewerage for individual sites
RAG Score Site Reference Reason
SAND3, SAND5, Local flooding - sites in Sandhurst likely to require SAND6, SAND7 catchment study / upgrades Due to the size of the development some network WINK14 enhancements very likely. WAR3 Reasons not given RED TWUL stated in their response to the draft Local Plan consultation that " The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand WINK20 anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. " WINK31 Local flooding BRA7 Look to reduce surface water flows BRA15, WINK9, WINK11, WINK 13 May need local upgrades WINK23 WINK10 Small 175mm sewer could be problematic
WINK22 Depends on Ascot WwTW capacity going forward AMBER WAR23 Depends on SPS / Connection point BIN9, BRA11, BRA3, BRA4, BRA12, BRA14, BRA15, WAR6, Non-specific capacity issues WAR10, WAR12, WAR13, WAR20, WINK8, WINK29, WINK35 All other sites with 10 or more housing CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE GREEN units are scored as PROPOSED GROWTH green.
NOT Sites with fewer Not assessed by Thames Water ASSESSED than 10 units
Where BFC have considered development of sites within clusters, the impact on foul sewerage capacity of a cluster may be greater than the impact of one or several of the individual sites within that cluster. RAG results for the clusters are summarised in Table 4-2: Table 4-2: RAG assessment of foul sewerage for clusters
RAG Score Cluster Reason
TWUL comment: Due to the size of the development some network RED 5 enhancements very likely.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 25
RAG Score Cluster Reason TWUL comment: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be 1 storage or upgrades required on site and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say categorically say what upgrades if any may be required to the local network. TWUL comment: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The 2 site is close to Easthampstead STW, so any network upgrades required may not be as extensive as if the site was some way from the STW. TWUL comment: This site is adjacent to Easthampstead Park STW. If flows were to go there it is unlikely network upgrades would be required. This comment is only relevant to the network and does not take into 3 account STW capacity. Should the STW not have the required capacity upgrades may be required to the network to take flows elsewhere. JBA comment: This cluster is formed from BRA3 and BRA4. The worst case RAG score by TWUL for these sites was applied here. AMBER TWUL comment: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be 4 storage or upgrades required on site and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say categorically say what upgrades if any may be required to the local network. TWUL comment: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be 6 storage or upgrades required on site and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say categorically say what upgrades if any may be required to the local network. Cluster 7 largely overlaps with Cluster 4. TWUL comment: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be storage or upgrades required on site 7 and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say categorically say what upgrades if any may be required to the local network.
4.2.3.1 Sites served by Ascot WwTW Five sites are likely to be served by Ascot WwTW. Thames Water gave WINK22 an "amber" rating and the remaining sites a "green" rating. In their response to the Draft Local Plan, Thames Water stated that, for WIN22, "the wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development." No clusters are likely to be served by Ascot WwTW.
4.2.3.2 Sites served by Bracknell WwTW 76 sites are likely to be served by Bracknell WwTW. Three of these, WAR3, WINK14 and WINK20 have a “red” rating. In the case of WINK14, this site forms the majority of Cluster 5, which also has a "red" score, as the size of the development is expected to require network enhancements. 20 sites have an "amber" rating for sewerage network capacity, the remaining sites being "green" or "not assessed". Clusters 1,2,4,5 and 7 would all be served by the Bracknell WwTW catchment. Cluster 5 is, as mentioned above, given a "red" score. Clusters 1,2,4 and 7 have an "Amber" score.
4.2.3.3 Sites served by Easthampstead Park WwTW Three sites are likely to be served by Easthampstead Park WwTW. BRA3 and BRA4 were given an "amber" rating for sewerage network capacity, whilst BRA1 resulted in a "green" rating. Clusters 1 and 2 are expected to be served by the catchment of Easthampstead WwTW; both are given an "amber score." BRA1 and BRA2 form Cluster 2. Site BRA1 is immediately adjacent to Easthampstead WwTW and therefore it is likely to drain to that works. Thames Water have considered that BRA2 may drain into either the catchment of Easthampstead Park WwTW or Bracknell WwTW.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 26
4.2.3.4 Sites served by Sandhurst WwTW Seven sites are likely to be served by Sandhurst WwTW. Thames Water gave SAND3, SAND5, SAND6, and SAND7 a “red” rating for sewerage network capacity, as a result of local foul sewer flooding issues. The remaining three sites were not assessed (less than 10 houses). Surface water sewerage No further assessments of surface water sewerage capacity were provided by Thames Water at this Phase 2 assessment. The overall conclusions of the Phase 1 assessment, which applied to the clusters and individual sites which are part of a cluster, are that surface water should be dealt with on site and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be incorporated. The discharge hierarchy should be followed: Water reuse or management at source Discharge to groundwater Discharge to a watercourse Discharge to a surface water sewer Development should not be permitted where discharge to foul sewer is proposed.
4.2.4 Conclusions The TWUL RAG assessment prepared for this outline study considered sites with a proposal for 10 or more dwellings. Of the 7116 sites assessed, 30 would require an upgrade to the sewerage network infrastructure. In 7 of these cases major constraints have been identified by Thames Water. Early developer engagement with TWUL is essential to ensure that, where necessary, additional capacity can be provided prior to developments becoming occupied. No further phase 3 assessment of sewerage capacity is recommended. The conclusions from Thames Water's combined assessment of wastewater treatment capacity are addressed, in combination with the headroom assessment prepared by JBA, in section 5.
4.2.5 Recommendations Table 4-3: Wastewater Collection System Assessment Actions
Action Responsibility Timescale
Take into account wastewater infrastructure BFC constraints in phasing development in Ongoing partnership with Thames Water Thames Water Thames Water and developers will be expected to work closely and early in the planning promotion process to develop an outline Drainage Strategy for sites. The Outline Drainage strategy should set out the following: What – What is required to serve the site. Where – Where are the assets / upgrades to be located. When – When are the assets to be delivered TW Developers (phasing). Ongoing BFC Which – Which delivery route is the developer going to use s104 s98 s106 etc. The Outline Drainage Strategy should be submitted as part of the planning application submission, and where required, used as a basis for a drainage planning condition to be set. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) will seek to ensure pre-development discussions have taken place between TW and the developers
16 Including three sites of less than 10 dwellings where Thames Water provided comments in response to the draft Local Plan.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 27
Action Responsibility Timescale Developers will be expected to demonstrate to the LLFA that surface water from a site will be disposed using a sustainable drainage system Developers (SuDS) with connection to surface water sewers Ongoing seen as the last option. New connections for LLFA surface water to foul sewers will be resisted by the LLFA.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 28
5 Wastewater Treatment
5.1 Wastewater Treatment Works in Bracknell Forest Within Bracknell Forest, there are 5 main Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW): Billingbear Lane WwTW Bracknell WwTW Ascot WwTW Easthampstead Park WwTW Sandhurst WwTW Camberley and Arborfield WwTWs serve settlements immediately beyond the boundary of Bracknell Forest, but do not currently receive wastewater from within Bracknell Forest, nor are they expected to in the future. The WwTWs are located in Figure 5.1, alongside the 2015 Water Framework Directive overall classifications for the watercourses into which these WwTWs discharge. A more detailed overview of each WwTW can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 5.1: Wastewater Treatment Works in Bracknell Forest
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 29
5.2 Wastewater Treatment Works Flow Permit Assessment
5.2.1 Introduction The Environment Agency is responsible for regulating sewage discharge releases via a system of Environmental Permits (EPs). Monitoring for compliance with these permits is the responsibility of both the EA and the plant operators. Figure 5.2 summarises the different types of wastewater releases that might take place, although precise details vary from works to works depending on the design. During dry weather, the final effluent from the Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) should be the only discharge (1). With rainfall, the storm tanks fill and eventually start discharging to the watercourse (2) and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) upstream of the storm tanks start to operate (3). The discharge of storm sewage from treatment works is allowed only under conditions of heavy rain or snow melt, and therefore the flow capacity of treatment systems is required to be sufficient to treat all flows arising in dry weather and the increased flow from smaller rainfall events. After rainfall, storm tanks should be emptied back to full treatment, freeing their capacity for the next rainfall event.
Figure 5.2: Overview of typical combined sewerage system and water recycling centre discharges
Environmental permits are used alongside water quality limits as a means of controlling the pollutant load discharged from a water recycling centre to a receiving watercourse. Sewage flow rates must be monitored for all WwTWs where the permitted discharge rate is greater than 50m3/day in dry weather. Permitted discharges are based on a statistic known as the Dry Weather Flow (DWF). As well as being used in the setting and enforcement of effluent discharge permits, the DWF is used for water recycling centre design, as a means of estimating the ‘base flow’ in sewerage modelling and for determining the flow at which discharges to storm tanks will be permitted by the permit (Flow to Full Treatment, FFT). WwTW Environmental Permits also consent for maximum concentrations of pollutants, in most cases Suspended Solids (SS), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Ammonia (NH4). Some works (usually the larger works) also have permits for Phosphorous (P). These are determined by the Environment Agency with the objective of ensuring that the receiving watercourse is not prevented from meeting its environmental objectives, with specific regard to the Chemical Status element of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) classification. Increased domestic population and/or employment activity can lead to increased wastewater flows arriving at a WwTW. Where there is insufficient headroom at the works to treat these flows, this could lead to failures in flow consents.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 30
5.2.2 Methodology Thames Water was provided with the list of proposed development sites and the potential housing numbers for each site (see Appendix A). The water company was then invited to provide an assessment of the receiving WwTWs and provide any additional comments about the impacts of the development. An assessment of the WwTW capacity was carried out using measured flow data supplied by the Environment Agency. The process was as follows: Calculate the current measured Dry Weather Flow (DWF). This was calculated as the 80- percentile exceedance flow for the period 2013 to 2015. As a check, the DWF for 2015, the last full year for which data was available at the time of request, was also calculated, and this value was used where it was greater than the 2013-15 DWF, in order to ensure that any recent trends or step changes in flow were represented within the current DWF. The period 2013-2015 included the impact of exceptionally wet winters of 2012-13 and 2013-14, which saw record or close to record groundwater levels within the Thames river basin. Consequently, the flow data is considered to be representative of a period which included exceptionally high levels of groundwater and sewer infiltration. The flow data was cleaned to remove zero values and low outlier values which would bring the measured DWF down. Potential development sites and existing commitments were assigned to a WwTW using the sewerage drainage area boundaries17. For each site, the future DWF was calculated assuming an occupancy rate of 2.4p/h (assumption provided by TW), a per-capita consumption of 122 or 126 l/p/d (for sites to be served by Affinity Water or SE Water respectively) and that 95% of water used is returned to sewer (assumption provided by TW). Permitted headroom was used as a substitute for actual designed hydraulic capacity for each WwTW being assessed. In some cases, permitted DWF might relate well to the actual designed hydraulic capacity of a WwTW, in other cases it might not. TW used the following red / amber / green traffic light definition to score each site:
Infrastructure and/or treatment Infrastructure and/or upgrades will be required to treatment upgrades will be Capacity available to serve serve proposed growth, but no required to serve proposed the proposed growth significant constraints to the growth. Major constraints provision of this infrastructure have been identified. have been identified
5.2.3 Results Table 5-1 shows the environmental permit conditions for the five treatment works obtained from the Environment Agency. Easthampstead Park and Sandhurst are both being upgraded during AMP6 (2015-2020) to meet tighter quality permit conditions in 2018. Table 5-1: WwTW Environmental Permit Conditions
P Permitted BOD NH4 Proposed Annual WwTW Operator Maximum 95%ile 95%ile changes to Mean DWF (Ml/d) (mg/l) (mg/l) permit (Mg/l)
Ascot TWUL 7.667 10 5 2
Billingbear Lane TWUL 0.020 30 None None
Bracknell TWUL 19.529 18 2 2
17 Two sites (BRA3 and BRA4) were assigned to Bracknell WwTW in the phase 1 scoping study. At phase 2, Thames Water have advised that it would be more appropriate for these sites to connect to the Easthampstead Park WwTW, based on their proximity to the WwTW.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 31
P Permitted BOD NH4 Proposed Annual WwTW Operator Maximum 95%ile 95%ile changes to Mean DWF (Ml/d) (mg/l) (mg/l) permit (Mg/l) Ammonia Easthampstead permit will TWUL 1.857 10 10 None Park reduce to 7mg/l on 31/03/2018 Phosphorous permit will Sandhurst TWUL 13.000 9 5 2 reduce to 0.5mg/l on 31/03/2018
Table 5-2: Calculation of growth by WwTW, commitments and potential future growth (all sites)
Housing growth over plan period Employment growth over plan Overview 2 (dwellings) period (m )
Within Within Within Within WwTW Study neighbouring Total Study neighbouring Total Area LPAs Area LPAs Ascot 908 691 1,599 0 0 0 Billingbear Lane 0 0 0 0 0
Bracknell 12,294 0 12,294 60,093 0 60,093
Easthampstead 1,460 2,220 3,680 136 0 136 Park
Sandhurst 2,164 146 2,042 5,000 0 5,000
Table 5-3: Calculation of growth by WwTW, commitment and potential future growth in Preferred sites scenario
Housing growth over plan period Employment growth over plan Overview 2 (dwellings) period (m )
Within Within Within Within WwTW Study neighbouring Total Study neighbouring Total Area LPAs Area LPAs Ascot 455 691 1,156 0 0 0 Billingbear Lane 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bracknell 7,147 0 7,147 54,493 0 54,493
Easthampstead 570 2,220 2,790 0 0 0 Park
Sandhurst 1,445 146 1,591 5,000 0 5,000 Table 5-4 provides additional information on the location and timing of growth, by WwTW. It shows all planned housing growth including completions, commitments and growth allowed for in BFC's "preferred sites" scenario in the Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan (February 2018).
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 32
Table 5-4: Planned growth by WwTW
Housing units (completions, commitments and Bracknell Forest Council Preferred Scenario WwTW Local Planning Authority AMP6 AMP7 AMP8 AMP9 AMP10 (2015-20) (2020-25) (2025-30) (2030-35) (2035-40) Bracknell Forest Council 5 0 240 210 0 Ascot Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 207 276 207 0 0 Total 212 276 447 210 0 Bracknell Forest Council 3901 516 968 1015 54 Bracknell Total 3901 516 968 1015 54 Bracknell Forest Council 23 25 26 25 4 Easthampstead Wokingham Borough Council 0 666 888 666 0 Park Total 23 691 914 691 4 Bracknell Forest Council 1167 19 19 19 4 Bracknell Forest Council (partially within 0 0 180 37 0 Sandhurst Wokingham) Hart District Council 58 26 35 26 0 Total 1225 45 234 82 4 Grand Total 5361 1529 2563 1998 62
5.2.3.1 Ascot WwTW Ascot WwTW predominantly serves settlements within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, including Ascot, Sunninghill, Sunningdale and a part of North Ascot which is within the Royal Borough. In addition, it also serves areas of south east Bracknell, including Forest Park and Crown Wood. Table 5-4 shows that, since 2015, just five housing units have been completed within that part of Bracknell Forest which is served by Ascot WwTW. No further growth is committed or planned within Bracknell Forest during AMP6 (2015-2020) or AMP7 (2020-2025). The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Draft Borough Local Plan of December 201618 identifies eight potential allocations within Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale, totalling 691 homes to 2033. For the purposes of this assessment, it was assumed that these would be built over AMPs 6, 7 and 8 (2015 to 2030). Figure 5.3 below shows the headroom assessment for two scenarios, the preferred sites, and a possible worst-case scenario where every identified site was adopted. For this WwTW there is little difference between the two scenarios. Analysis of the 2013-15 flow data indicates that Ascot WwTW exceeded its DWF permit in 2015 and will continue to do so. The EA have advised that this is the subject of an ongoing investigation by TWUL. Thames Water undertook investigations during the period that this WCS was being prepared, and have provided the following comments: TWUL is considering a scheme in AMP7 (2015-2020) with a twin catchment approach which links two pumping stations sending flows to either Ascot or Bracknell STW. We have undertaken an investigation into the DWF failure reported to the EA in 2015. Following this investigation, we have acknowledgement that Ascot has sufficient storm tank capacity with tanks 2, 3 & 4 allowing storm tank 1, with some modifications to the returns system, to be converted into a balancing tank preventing DWF failure and enabling ongoing compliance. On the basis that TWUL have identified an appropriate solution to enable present day and future flows to be managed within their permit, the final RAG score has been set as Amber.
18 Royal Borough of Maidenhead and Windsor (2016) Draft Borough Local Plan December 2016 Accessed online at http://consult.rbwm.gov.uk/portal/blp/blp/blp?pointId=s1465825773902 on: 20/12/2017
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 33
Figure 5.3: Ascot WwTW DWF headroom forecast
5.2.3.2 Billingbear WwTW Billingbear is a small WwTW serving houses on Billingbear Lane, which TW assess to be currently at full capacity. No growth is planned in the Billingbear catchment; therefore, it is not expected to require investment over the plan period to increase capacity or improve treatment because of the planned growth. Due to the small size of the works, even minor windfall development could lead to a breach of the flow permit.
5.2.3.3 Bracknell WwTW Bracknell WwTW is the largest in Bracknell Forest and 100% of the wastewater treated at Bracknell WwTW derives from within Bracknell Forest. This catchment is expected to accommodate much of the housing and employment growth within Bracknell Forest. The analysis indicates that the flow permit would be expected to be exceeded halfway through AMP7 (2020 to 2025) as a result of the planned growth from the preferred option sites. If all the identified sites were adopted this may happen sooner within AMP7 and would exceed it by a significantly higher amount by the end of the plan period.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 34
Figure 5.4: Bracknell WwTW DWF headroom forecast
5.2.3.4 Easthampstead Park WwTW The majority of the urban area served by Easthampstead Park WwTW lies within Wokingham Borough. Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) are currently preparing a Local Plan Update with a target completion of May 2019. An Issues and Options consultation19 was undertaken in August 2016, but this does not include any site or settlement specific proposals. WBC do, however, publish a call-for-sites document which is updated monthly20. Figure 5.5 shows a number of sites to the north of Crowthorne which could be drained to Easthampstead Park. For the purpose of this assessment, we have assumed that the following sites, if developed, would drain to Easthampstead Park: 5WW002, 5WW011, 5WW014, 5WW018 and 5WW019. Note that the suitability of these sites has not been published by WBC. WBC's Core Strategy allows for 2,500 additional dwellings in the Southern Strategic Development Location, over the period 2006 to 2026. No figures were available on committed but as yet unbuilt sites within this area will connect to Easthampstead Park. Analysis indicates that the flow permit would be expected to be exceeded towards the end of AMP7 (2020 to 2025) as a result of the planned growth in the preferred sites scenario, and halfway through AMP if all identified sites were adopted. The TWUL RAG assessment reported in Phase 1 assessed Easthampstead Park WwTW as "red", and states that "Easthampstead Park STW will require upgrades in order to accommodate this development". Thames Water undertook investigations during the period that this Phase 2 WCS was being prepared, and have provided the following comments: We are working closely with the developer of the largest development (circa 1100 homes) within the catchment to ensure capacity is available when required. The need for growth upgrades at the works has been identified and is planned for AMP7 (2020-2025) delivery in line with housing delivery. On this basis, the final RAG score has been adjusted to Amber, indicating that there are no longer considered to be significant constraints to expanding this treatment works to accommodate growth.
19 Wokingham Borough Council (2016) Local Plan Update: Issues and Options Consultation Document. Accessed online at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan-update/ on: 17/04/2018 20 Wokingham Borough Council (2017) Suggested Sites List. Accessed online at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/planning- policy/local-plan-update/ on: 20/12/2017
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 35
Figure 5.5: Easthampstead Park DWF WwTW headroom forecast
Figure 5.6: Extract from Wokingham Borough Council Call for Sites Map
5.2.3.5 Sandhurst WwTW Approximately 50% of the Sandhurst catchment serves the settlements of Yateley and Blackwater, within Hart District. During preparation of this study Hart District Council was consulting on the Draft Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2011-203221, which identifies one new
21 Hart District Council (2017) Draft Hart Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2011-2032. Accessed online at: https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Local_Plan/Draft%20L ocal%20Plan%20Strategy%20and%20Sites%202011-2032.pdf on: 07/12/2017. This has now been superseded by Hart Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2016-3032 (Proposed Final Submission Version February 2018). Accessed online at:
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 36
housing site in Yateley. In addition, their five-year housing land supply22 includes two housing sites in Yateley and Blackwater, and these have been included in the assessment. The analysis indicates that Sandhurst WwTW has capacity to accommodate all planned growth during the plan period, both from Bracknell Forest and from Hart. There is minimal difference between the preferred option scenario and if all sites were developed.
Figure 5.7: Sandhurst WwTW DWF Headroom Forecast
https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Local_Plan/Hart%20L ocal%20Plan%20Strategy%20and%20Sites%20Reg%2019%20v1.5.pdf on:09/05/2018 22 Hart District Council (2016) Hart Five Year Land Supply (at 1st April 2016). Accessed online at: https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Hart%20Five%20Year %20Housing%20Land%20Supply%20at%201st%20April%202016%20Final.pdf on: 07/12/2017
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 37
Table 5-5: Wastewater Treatment Works Flow and Quality Consent Assessment - All identified development sites23
Headroom Assessment Present day (greater of End of AMP6 End of AMP7 End of AMP8 End of AMP9 End of AMP10 Permitted 2013-2015 or 2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040 WwTW Maximum measured flow) DWF (Ml/d) DWF Headroom Total Headroom Total Headroom Total Headroom Total Headroom Total Headroom (Ml/d) % of DWF % of DWF % of DWF % of DWF % of DWF % of Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted
Ascot 7.667 8.173 -7% 8.240 -7% 8.340 -9% 8.498 -11% 8.577 -12% 8.577 -12% Billingbear Lane 0.020 0.020 0% 0.020 0% 0.020 0% 0.020 0% 0.020 0% 0.020 0% Bracknell 19.529 16.548 15% 19.184 2% 20.032 -3% 22.834 -17% 25.927 -33% 25.943 -33% Easthampstead Park 1.857 1.666 10% 1.673 10% 1.951 -5% 2.399 -29% 2.766 -49% 2.767 -49% Sandhurst 13.000 6.667 49% 7.504 42% 7.581 42% 7.581 40% 7.824 40% 7.825 40%
Table 5-6: Wastewater Treatment Works Flow and Quality Consent Assessment - Preferred sites24
Headroom Assessment Present day (greater of End of AMP6 End of AMP7 End of AMP8 End of AMP9 End of AMP10 Permitted 2013-2015 or 2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040 WwTW Maximum measured flow) DWF (Ml/d) DWF Headroom Total Headroom Total Headroom Total Headroom Total Headroom Total Headroom (Ml/d) % of DWF % of DWF % of DWF % of DWF % of DWF % of Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted (Ml/d) Permitted
Ascot 7.667 8.173 -7% 0.067 -7% 0.155 -9% 0.296 -10% 0.362 -11% 0.362 -11% Billingbear Lane 0.020 0.020 0% 2.636 0% 2.833 0% 4.767 0% 7.209 0% 7.225 0% Bracknell 19.529 16.548 15% 0.007 2% 0.215 1% 0.570 -9% 0.867 -22% 0.869 -22% Easthampstead Park 1.857 1.666 10% 0.837 10% 0.851 -1% 0.920 -20% 0.944 -36% 0.945 -36% Sandhurst 13.000 6.667 49% 0.067 42% 0.155 42% 0.296 42% 0.362 41% 0.362 41%
23 Includes sites with planning consent and all potential development sites within Bracknell Forest. This also includes growth in neighbouring planning authorities that share wastewater infrastructure with BFC. 24 Includes sites with planning consent and preferred option development sites within Bracknell Forest. This also includes growth in neighbouring planning authorities that share wastewater infrastructure with BFC.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 38
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 39
5.2.4 Conclusions The assessment indicates that Ascot, Bracknell and Easthampstead Park WwTWs are all forecast to exceed their permitted dry weather flow as a result of planned growth in the preferred sites scenario during the plan period, and indeed that Ascot did exceed its permitted DWF in 2015. In the case of Bracknell WwTW, the future exceedance is as a result of planned growth in Bracknell Forest only. In the case of Ascot and Easthampstead Park, it is as a result of planned growth in both Bracknell Forest and in neighbouring authorities. It is therefore anticipated that these three WwTWs will require capacity upgrades during the plan period. TWUL have given Ascot WwTW an "amber" assessment. Following further work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this WCS, which has confirmed that current and future flows at Ascot can be managed within their permit by converting storm tank 1 into a balancing tank, the WCS concludes that this RAG assessment is appropriate. As practically all growth planned in the Ascot catchment to 2025 is within Windsor and Maidenhead, it would be advisable to provide a copy of this study to Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council's planners. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPAs and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Ascot catchment. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified by TWUL. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPA and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Bracknell catchment. TWUL's RAG assessment for the Phase 1 WCS gave Easthampstead Park a "red" score, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, and that major constraints have been identified. However, following further work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this Phase 2 WCS, TWUL have confirmed that they are working towards a capacity upgrade during AMP7 (2020 to 2025), and therefore the final RAG assessment is "amber". As the great majority of growth planned in the Easthampstead Park catchment is within Wokingham, it would be advisable to provide a copy of this study to Wokingham Borough Council's planners. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPAs and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Easthampstead Park catchment. Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both Bracknell Forest and Hart District. Billingbear WwTW is a very small works, operating at its flow capacity. There is no planned growth in this catchment, and no capacity for even minor windfall development, without a treatment works upgrade being required.
5.2.5 Recommendations Table 5-7 details the recommendations that have been found from the flow permit assessment. Table 5-7: Wastewater Treatment Works Permit Actions
Action Responsibility Timescale Consider the available WwTW capacity when phasing development going to the same WwTW. This is particularly the case for developments to be served by Ascot WwTW, BFC Ongoing until such time as there is sufficient available evidence that headroom capacity is not an issue.
Report findings of growth study to BFC and confirm capacity at TWUL Spring/Summer Ascot going forwards.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 40
Action Responsibility Timescale
Provide Annual Monitoring Reports to Thames Water BFC Ongoing detailing projected housing growth in the Local Authority.
Thames Water to assess growth demands as part of their wastewater asset planning activities and feedback to BFC if TWUL / BFC Ongoing concerns arise.
Provide a copy of the WCS to planning colleagues at Windsor On completion and Maidenhead Borough Council and Wokingham Borough BFC of Phase 2 Council and point out the conclusions relating to Ascot WCS. WwTW and Easthampstead Park WwTW.
5.3 Wastewater Treatment Works Odour Assessment Where new development encroaches upon an existing Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW), odour from that site may become a cause for nuisance and complaints from residents. Managing odour at WwTWs can add considerable capital and operational costs, particularly when retro-fitted to existing WwTWs. National Planning Policy Guidance recommends that plan-makers consider whether new development is appropriate near to sites used (or proposed) for water and wastewater infrastructure, due to the risk of odour nuisance.
5.3.1 Methodology Sewerage undertakers recommend that an odour assessment may be required if the site of a proposed development is close to a WwTW and is encroaching closer to the WwTW than existing urban areas. For Thames Water, this is development sites less than 800m from the WwTW. An updated methodology25 to that described in the scoping study was applied taking into account the size of the WwTW as well as its proximity to development sites. The Anglian Water Asset Encroachment Risk Assessment Methodology26 was used to give each WwTW a classification based on the population served (population equivalent calculated from consented DWF). A risk category for each development was then assigned based on both the distance from the nearest WwTW and its relative size. Another important aspect is the location of the site in respect to the WwTW. Historic wind direction records for sites around Bracknell indicate that the prevailing wind is from south southwest (Farnborough) to west southwest / southwest (Heathrow)27. A red / amber / green assessment was applied:
Site location is such that an Site is in an area with Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour impact assessment is confirmed WwTW odour odour from WwTW recommended issues
5.3.2 Data Collection The datasets used to assess the impact of odour from a WwTW were: Site location in GIS format (provided by the BFC) WwTW locations (provided by TW) "Consented discharges to controlled waters with conditions" database Site tracker spreadsheet (see Appendix A)
25 A new, more detailed method was developed in between the scoping study and the outline study that takes into account the size of the WwTW. It was decided to apply this to all of the sites when assessing the additional sites added since the scoping study. 26 Anglian Water (2012) Asset Encroachment Risk Assessment Methodology: Guidance document. Accessed online at: http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/_assets/media/121212_Asset_Encroachment_Risk_Assessment_Methodology_publish(1).pdf on: 20/12/2017 27 RenSMART website http://www.rensmart.com/Weather/WindArchive#monthlyLayer accessed on: 20/12/2017
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 41
5.3.3 Results A list of sites where it is recommended that an odour assessment is undertaken is shown in Table 5-8 below. Table 5-8: Sites recommended for odour assessment
Direction of Site distance Site Ref WwTW the WwTW from WwTW Comments from site (m) Nearest existing West south BRA3 Easthampstead 12 housing is 200 m west to west of WwTW Nearest existing BRA4 Easthampstead North west 255 housing is 150m to east of site Limited existing housing within WAR5 Bracknell North 651 200 m south of WwTW WAR23 Bracknell North west 575 Existing housing 85m West of WINK22 Ascot South 80 WwTW and 270 m North West south As per BRA3 and CLUSTER3 Easthampstead 12 west BRA4
5.3.4 Conclusions The odour screening assessment concluded that five sites and one cluster may be at risk of experiencing odour due to their proximity to the existing WwTW. It is recommended that odour assessments be undertaken as part of the planning application process for these sites. It is the developer's responsibility to undertake an odour risk assessment. All other sites are unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTWs. Odour assessments, where the screening assessment indicates that they are required, should be undertaken by site developers. No additional assessment of odour impact is required in a Phase 3 WCS. Table 5-9: Summary of odour impact assessment
Site Ref WwTW Assessment
BRA3 Easthampstead
BRA4 Easthampstead
WAR5 Bracknell Site location is such that an odour impact assessment is recommended as WAR23 Bracknell part of the planning application process
WINK22 Ascot
CLUSTER3 Easthampstead
All other Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour
sites/CLUSTERS from WwTW
5.3.5 Recommendations Table 5-10 provides a summary of actions relating to the wastewater treatment works odour assessment.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 42
Table 5-10: Wastewater Treatment Works Odour Actions
Action Responsibility Timescale
Consider odour risk in the sites identified to be at risk from BFC Ongoing nuisance odour Site Carry out an odour assessment for 'amber' assessed sites. Ongoing Developers
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 43
6 Water Quality Assessment
6.1 Introduction An increase in the discharge of effluent from Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) as a result of development and growth in the area in which they serve can lead to a negative impact on the quality of the receiving watercourse. Under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), a watercourse is not allowed to deteriorate from its current WFD classification (either as an overall watercourse or for individual elements assessed). It is Environment Agency (EA) policy to model the impact of increasing effluent volumes on the receiving watercourses. Where the scale of development is such that a deterioration is predicted, a variation to the Environmental Permit (EP) may be required for the WwTW to improve the quality of the final effluent, so that the increased pollution load will not result in a deterioration in the water quality of the watercourse. This is known as "no deterioration" or "load standstill". The need to meet river quality targets is also taken into consideration when setting or varying a permit. The Environment Agency operational instructions on water quality planning and no-deterioration are currently being reviewed. Previous operational instructions28 (now withdrawn) set out a hierarchy for how the no-deterioration requirements of the WFD should be implemented on inland waters. The potential impact of development should be assessed in relation to the following objectives: Could the development cause a greater than 10% deterioration in water quality? This objective is to ensure that all the environmental capacity is not taken up by one stage of development and there is sufficient capacity for future growth. Could the development cause a deterioration in WFD class of any element assessed? This is a requirement of the Water Framework Directive to prevent a deterioration in class of individual contaminants. The "Weser Ruling"29 by the European Court of Justice in 2015 specified that individual projects should not be permitted where they may cause a deterioration of the status of a water body. If a water body is already at the lowest status ("bad"), any impairment of a quality element was considered to be a deterioration. Emerging practice is that a 3% limit of deterioration is applied. Could the development alone prevent the receiving watercourse from reaching Good Ecological Status or Potential? Is GES possible with current technology or is GES technically possible after development with any potential WwTW upgrades. A detailed water quality modelling report is included in Appendix B.
6.2 Methodology Following latest guidance from the EA's Thames area office, this assessment has been revised to use a catchment modelling approach, using the EA's SIMCAT software. This is the preferred modelling platform as it has the advantage of assessing the cumulative impacts of increased effluent from all WwTWs discharging to a river or its tributaries. The approach was applied as follows: The SIMCAT approach was applied to all WwTWs expected to receive significant future growth within the Loddon and Thames catchment. Treatment works along The Cut (Bracknell), Bull Brook (Ascot), Emm Brook (Easthampstead) and the Blackwater (Sandhurst) were modelled. The contaminants assessed at each WwTW were Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Ammonia (NH4) and Phosphorous (P).
28 Environment Agency (2012) Water Quality Planning: no deterioration and the Water Framework Directive. Accessed online at http://www.fwr.org/WQreg/Appendices/No_deterioration_and_the_WFD_50_12.pdf on: 20/12/2017 29 European Court of Justice (2015) PRESS RELEASE No 74/15 Accessed online at: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-07/cp150074en.pdf on: 20/12/2017
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 44
SIMCAT models were updated to a baseline using observed river flow, river quality effluent flow and effluent quality statistics for the period 2013-2015. The EA's Thames River Basin District (RBD) model was used to model Easthampstead WwTW effluent discharging into the Emm Brook. The Cut and Bull Brook reaches were not structured as features within the Thames RBD model. Only river flow and diffuse were referenced within the baseline model, therefore a new SIMCAT model was developed for these reaches. All available baseline data for the reaches was copied from the Thames RBD model to the new model. A scaled-down version of the Thames RBD model for the Blackwater was used to model Sandhurst WwTW. The Blackwater was previously modelled by AECOM within the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS, for the period 2013-2015. This model was used as a baseline, with future additional flow updated for Sandhurst WwTW. One of the potential impacts of climate change is a reduction in river flows, which would result in lower dilution of wastewater effluent. The potential impacts of this were tested by reducing the river flow statistics within the modelled watercourses. The methodology followed is summarised in the flow chart below:
Could the development Could the development Could the development b. Is GES technically cause >10% deterioration cause deterioration in alone prevent the possible after in water quality? WFD class? receiving water from development and reaching Good potential STW No Yes No Yes Ecological Status or Yes upgrades? No Potential? Specifically: a. is GES possible now with current technology?
No Yes
No Could WFD class deterioration be prevented Yes Is the water body already Could >10% deterioration meeting Good Ecological be prevented using current Status? technology? Yes No
Yes No Sufficient Environmental Good Ecological Status Proposed development Environmental capacity can be accommodated Capacity. Proposed cannot be achieved due with a tighter permit and could be a constraint to development has no to current technology upgrade to treatment. growth significant impact on the limits. Ensure proposed This is achievable with current technology. water body's potential for growth doesn't cause reaching GES. significant deterioration.
Figure 6.1: Water quality impact assessment following EA Thames West guidance
Source: Environment Agency West Thames Area (2015)
Where modelling indicated growth may lead to a deterioration in the watercourse, or where the watercourse is not currently meeting at least a 'Good' class for each determinand, the models were used to test whether this could be addressed by applying stricter discharge concentrations. In such cases, the limits of Best Available Technology (BAT) were considered. The EA advised that the following permit values are achievable using Best Available Technology, and that these values should be used for modelling all WwTW potential capacity irrespective of the existing treatment technology and size of the works: Ammonia (95%-ile): 1mg/l BOD (95%-ile): 5mg/l Phosphorous (mean): 0.5mg/l Note that phosphorus removal has been the subject of long-term national trials investigating novel techniques and optimisation of existing methods. This major study, which involved all UK water companies, completed in late 2017, and concluded that a new Technologically Achievable Limit or
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 45
TAL for phosphorous should be set at 0.25mg/l as an annual average30. This report was not available to JBA Consulting at the time the water quality assessment was undertaken. It will inform the water companies business plans for delivering water quality improvements during AMP7 (2020 to 2025) and beyond. This phase 2 WCS is, however, based on the previous assumption of BAT for phosphorus of 0.5mg/l. This assessment did not take into consideration if it is feasible to upgrade each existing WwTW to best available technology due to constraints of costs, timing, space, carbon costs etc.
30 Environment Agency (2017) PR19: New approaches for permitting phosphorus. Unpublished note.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 46
Figure 6.2: WFD Cycle 2 Water Quality Classifications of Watercourses in Bracknell Forest
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 47
6.2.1 Data Collection The datasets used to assess the water quality impact were as follows: River data: Flow gauges (mean and 95% exceedance flow) Water quality sampling points (mean and standard deviation for each contaminant) WwTW Discharge data: Final effluent flow (mean and standard deviation) Effluent quality sampling points (mean and standard deviation for each contaminant) River quality target data: Current (WFD Cycle 2016) class for each contaminant River quality objective targets Additional wastewater demand from growth: A wastewater demand was generated using site information recorded in Appendix A, combined with a mean occupancy rate and per capita consumption provided by Affinity Water and South East Water. The scenario where all identified sites are developed was used (see Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 for a comparison of the "all sites" and "preferred sites" scenarios.
6.3 Results Table 6-1: summarises the modelling results for passing or failing the following targets: percentage deterioration class deterioration Could the water body be prevented from meeting Good Status
Table 6-1: Summary of water quality assessment results
Could the Could the Could the development development prevent Watercourse development cause a cause a deterioration in the water body from (WwTW) greater than 10% WFD class of any reaching Good (or deterioration in WQ? element? High) class? No infrastructure No infrastructure upgrade required to achieve upgrade required to achieve Infrastructure upgrade likely to be required, but Infrastructure upgrade likely to be required, but achievable using BAT, achievable using BAT or not achievable due to Key current technology limits. Cannot be achieved using BAT. Cannot be achieved using BAT. Environmental Environmental capacity capacity could be a constraint on growth. could be a constraint on growth.
Good class is already being achieved for BOD and NH4. Good class Bull Brook Predicted deterioration No class deterioration is could be achieved for P (Ascot) is <10%. predicted. with the application of BAT and upstream water quality
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 48
improvements. Proposed growth would not prevent good class from being achieved.
Good class is already Predicted deterioration being achieved for BOD Class deterioration is >10% for all and NH4. Good class predicted for BOD. determinands. could be achieved for P Proposed development Proposed development with the application of Cut can be accommodated can be accommodated BAT and upstream (Bracknell) with a tighter permit and with a tighter permit and water quality upgrade to the WwTW. upgrade to the WwTW. improvements. This is achievable with This is achievable using Proposed growth would BAT. BAT not prevent good class from being achieved. Predicted deterioration Good class is already is 10% or greater for being achieved for BOD NH4 and BOD. Class deterioration and NH4. Good class Predicted class is Bad predicted for BOD. could be achieved for P for P but deterioration is Proposed development with the application of Emm Brook <3%. Proposed can be accommodated BAT and upstream (Easthampstead) development can be with a tighter permit and water quality accommodated with a upgrade to the WwTW. improvements. tighter permit and This is achievable with Proposed growth would upgrade to the WwTW. BAT. not prevent good class This is achievable using from being achieved. BAT Predicted deterioration of 10% for NH4 at Class deterioration Good class is already WwTW and greater predicted for Ammonia being achieved for BOD than 10% downstream downstream of treatment and NH4. Good class of WwTW for both NH4 works. Proposed cannot be achieved for Blackwater and P. Proposed development can be P due to current (Sandhurst) development can be accommodated with a technology limits. accommodated with a tighter permit and Proposed growth would tighter permit and upgrade to the WwTW. not prevent good class upgrade to the WwTW. This is achievable with from being achieved. This is achievable using BAT. BAT.
The proposed levels of growth to be treated by Ascot would not lead to a deterioration, either of 10% or of class. The Bull Brook is not currently meeting Good class for Phosphorous. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, The Cut could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. At Bracknell WwTW, increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for BOD, Ammonia and Phosphate. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, The Cut could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. Increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment of Easthampstead Park WwTW are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for BOD and Ammonia. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, the Emm Brook immediately downstream of the WwTW could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. The model indicates that Good class would not be reached at the next
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 49
downstream sampling point (PLDR0015), however this is due to inflows from Ash Ridge WwTW. The impacts of growth and treatment improvements at Ash Ridge have not been investigated, as this treatment works does not serve any settlements within Bracknell Forest. At Sandhurst WwTW, increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for Ammonia and Phosphorous. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. The Blackwater is not currently meeting Good class for Phosphorous, and Good class could not be achieved due to limitations of present-day Best Available Technology. The majority of development in the catchment is made up of completions and commitments during AMP6, principally 1,000 homes at Land at former TRL site, Nine Mile Ride (SALP policy SA5). Consequently, the predicted deterioration may occur early during the plan period (although this has not been tested). Following completion of the water quality modelling, JBA Consulting were made aware of the Environment Agency’s updated guidance on permitting phosphorous. This guidance, based on the findings of the national programme of phosphorous removal trials, approves a new, lower TAL (Technically Achievable Limit, the new terminology for Best Available Technology) of 0.25mg/l as an annual average. The modelling has not been run using this new TAL, but it is not considered that this would fundamentally change the findings of this study. A deterioration of greater than 10% in phosphorous is predicted in The Cut downstream of Bracknell WwTW, however this can be corrected by tightening the permit within the old TAL of 0.5mg/l. The new, lower TAL could potentially enable Good classification to be achieved for phosphorous in the Blackwater, however this has not been tested. An analysis of the potential impacts of reduced river flows as a result of climate change indicate that there is a significant risk of deterioration of water quality. It is expected that future River Basin Management Plans will investigate this risk further and consider how it can be mitigated. Wherever possible, plans should promote "no-regrets" decisions which enhance the resilience of river systems to climate change impacts, for example by promoting Catchment Based Approaches. The planned growth within Bracknell Forest and its neighbouring authorities can be accommodated without causing a deterioration in water quality for sanitary determinands and nutrients, so long as timely interventions to prevent deterioration are implemented by Thames Water and the Environment Agency. Particular attention is drawn to the need to ensure that deterioration does not occur as a result of ongoing committed development in the Sandhurst catchment during AMP6 (2015-2020). The planned growth within Bracknell and its neighbouring authorities would not prevent Good class from being achieved, however Good class is not currently achievable in the Blackwater due to the limitations of present-day Phosphorous removal technologies.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 50
7 Flood Risk Management
7.1 Assessment of Additional Flood Risk from Increased WwTW Discharges
7.1.1 Introduction In catchments with a large planned growth in population and which discharge effluent to a small watercourse, the increase in the discharged effluent might have a negative effect on the risk of flooding. The scoping study concluded that there was a low risk of the increase in effluent discharge increasing flood risk downstream, however this assessment was repeated using the latest site information (including additional sites identified since Phase 1) in order to verify this conclusion.
7.1.2 Methodology The following process has been used to assess the potential increased risk of flooding due to extra flow reaching a specific WwTW: Calculate the increase in DWF because of the planned growth; Identify the point of discharge of these WwTWs; At each outfall point, use the FEH CD-ROM v3.0 to extract the catchment descriptors; Use FEH Statistical method to calculate peak 1 in 30 (Q30) and 1 in 100 (Q100) year fluvial flows; Calculate the additional foul flow as a percentage of the Q30 and Q100 flow
A red / amber / green score was applied to score the associated risk as follows:
Additional flow ≥5% of Q30. Additional flow ≥5% of Q100. Additional flow ≤5% of Q30. Low Moderate risk that increased High risk that increased risk that increased discharges will discharges will increase fluvial discharges will increase fluvial increase fluvial flood risk flood risk flood risk
The datasets used to assess the risk of flooding are the following: Current and predicted future DWF for each WwTW Location of WwTW outfalls Catchment descriptors from FEH CD-ROM v3.031 The assessment was based on the "all sites" scenario, taking into consideration all potential development sites within each catchment, rather than just those sites proposed in the Local Plan.
7.1.3 Results Table 7-1 below shows the additional flow from the WwTW as a percentage of the Q30 and Q100 peak flow. This shows that the additional flows from the WwTWs post development, would have a negligible effect on the predicted peak flow events with return periods of 30 and 100 years. Table 7-1: Summary of DWF increase as a percentage of Q30 and Q100 peak flow
FEH FEH Additional Additional Flow Flow Stat Stat WwTW Average Flow increase % increase Q30 Q100 3 3 3 DWF (Ml/d) (m /s) Q30 % Q100 (m /s) (m /s)
Ascot 0.91 1.2 0.506 0.0059 0.6% 0.5%
Bracknell 20.19 25.03 9.421 0.1090 0.5% 0.2%
Easthampstead 0.4 0.55 1.033 0.0120 3.0% 2.2%
31 FEH CD-ROM v3.0 © NERC (CEH). © Crown copyright. © AA. 2009. All rights reserved.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 51
FEH FEH Additional Additional Flow Flow Stat Stat WwTW Average Flow increase % increase Q30 Q100 3 3 3 DWF (Ml/d) (m /s) Q30 % Q100 (m /s) (m /s)
Sandhurst 18.84 23.19 1.140 0.0132 0.1% 0.1%
7.1.4 Conclusions A detailed assessment of flood risk can be found within the Bracknell Forest Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (February 2018). An assessment was carried out to determine whether increased discharges of treated effluent from each WwTW due to development within Bracknell Forest could lead to an increase in fluvial flood risk from the receiving watercourse. The assessment carried out in phase 1 was repeated incorporating the additional sites identified since the scoping study, capturing changes to housing numbers on individual sites and incorporating changes made to the allocation of WwTWs to development sites. This was carried out at all the WwTW that will receive additional flows from the identified development sites, and results showed that the impact of increased effluent flows is not predicted to have a significant impact upon flood risk in any of the receiving watercourses. Increases in discharges of treated wastewater effluent as a result of growth are not expected to significantly increase flood risk. No further assessment is required in a phase 3 WCS.
7.1.5 Recommendations Table 7-2: Summary of Flood Risk Management Recommendations
Action Responsibility Timescale
Proposals to increase discharges to a watercourse may also require a flood risk activities environmental permit from the EA During design of (in the case of discharges to Main River), or Ordinary TW WwTW upgrades Watercourse consent from the Lead Local Flood Authority (in the case of discharges to an Ordinary Watercourse).
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 52
8 Climate Change Impact Assessment
8.1 Approach A qualitative assessment was undertaken at Phase 1 to assess the potential impacts of climate change on the assessments made in this water cycle study. This was done using a matrix which considers both the potential impact of climate change on the assessment in question, and also the degree to which climate change has been considered in the information used to make the assessments contained within the WCS (see Table 8-1). The impacts have been assessed on a BFC area wide basis; the available climate models are generally insufficiently refined to draw different conclusions for different parts of Bracknell Forest or doing so would require a degree of detail beyond the scope of this study. The Phase 1 scoping study concluded that “the capacity of the sewerage system and the water quality of receiving water bodies stand out as two elements of the assessment where the consequences of climate change are expected to be high, but no account has been made of climate impacts in the assessment." In response, this phase 2 study consideration has been given to the impact of reduced river flows on water quality, and Thames Water were invited to consider climate change impacts in their assessments of sewerage capacity. Table 8-1: Climate Change Pressures Scoring Matrix Impact of pressure
Low Medium High Yes - quantitative
Have climate consideration change pressures been considered Some in the Water consideration but Cycle Study qualitative only (Phases 1 and 2)? Not considered
8.2 Water quality As presented in more detail in section 6 and Appendix B, the potential impacts of climate change on water quality in rivers receiving discharges of wastewater effluent were tested by reducing the river flow statistics within the modelled watercourses. The results indicate that there is a significant risk of deterioration of water quality as a consequence of reduced river flows, leading to reduced dilution of treated effluent. The Environment Agency32, in consultation responses to the Phase 1 WCS submitted with the draft Local Plan, commented that the WCS should provide more information on sewer infiltration and on what impact climate change may have on sewer infiltration. Currently there is no national guidance on assessing the impacts of climate change on sewer infiltration, the magnitude of which can be impacted by seasonal and in some cases shorter term rainfall accumulations, groundwater abstraction and the condition of the public sewerage and private drainage systems. High infiltration can lead to increased frequency and volume of discharges from CSOs and storm tanks at treatment works and can lead to treatment problems where the sewage incoming to a treatment works is highly diluted. Thames Water does take infiltration into consideration when assessing the capacity of sewerage systems and treatment works. In the future, as knowledge of climate change impacts develops, consideration should be given to accounting for the potential impacts on groundwater levels and hence on infiltration within water quality models.
32 Letter from Environment Agency to Bracknell Forest Council, 26/03/2018 reference WA/2011/110352/CS-02/PO1-L01
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 53
8.3 Wastewater collection and treatment Thames Water have published a risk assessment33 for both wastewater treatment and wastewater sewerage networks that identifies the level of threat from climate change in key service areas. In the case of WwTW, the highest perceived risks are in asset performance and pollution incidents, both of which can be attributed to an increased risk of flooding. In the case of the wastewater network, sewer flooding, resulting from increased rainfall intensity overwhelming the sewer network, is added to the risks of impacts on asset performance and pollution incidents.
8.4 Results summary Table 8-2 summarises the impact of climate change, and whether it has been taken into account in the assessments contained in phases 1 and 2 of the water cycle study. Wastewater collection and treatment are both scored as "red", this is because whilst Thames Water have published a climate risk assessment for their assets showing they are considering the issue at a strategic level no additional information has been received on whether or how this has been taken into account in their assessments of wastewater collection and treatment capacity. The RAG score for the impact of climate change on water quality remains red, because the limited modelling undertaken for this study indicates that reduced river flows as a result of climate change could lead to a deterioration in water quality. Table 8-2: Scoring of Climate Change Consequences for the Water Cycle Study
Have climate change pressures Impact of Pressure Assessment been considered in the Water Cycle RAG (source of information) Study (Phases 1 and 2)?
Yes - quantitative within WRMP and Water resources High (1 and 2) RMBP.
Water supply Medium - some increased Yes - qualitative consideration within
infrastructure demand in hot weather WRMP.
No - not considered in TWUL High - Intense summer assessment. Qualitative consideration Wastewater Collection rainfall and higher winter in Thames Water's climate change rainfall increases flood risk adaptation report. No - not considered in TWUL Medium - Increased winter assessment. flows and more extreme Wastewater treatment weather events reduces Qualitative consideration in Thames flow headroom Water's climate change adaptation report. WwTW odour Low No - not considered. Yes, sensitivity to reductions in river Nutrients: High (1) (3) flow has been tested, and indicates Water quality Sanitary determinands: there could be a significant risk of a Medium (1) to High (3) deterioration in water quality as a result of reduced river flows. Flooding from increased Low No - not considered. WwTW discharge (1) River Basin Management Plan Thames River Basin District (2) Affinity Water and South East Water, WRMPs 2014 (3) Water quality modelling presented in section 6 and Appendix B of this study.
8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations No additional assessments of the impact of climate change is recommended for the Phase 3 Detailed WCS.
33 Thames Water's progress in planning for climate change, Thames Water (2016). Accessed online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519218/climate-adrep-thames-water.pdf on: 25/01/18
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 54
Table 8-3: Climate Change Actions
Action Responsibility Timescale
When undertaking detailed assessments of environmental or asset capacity, consider how the EA, TWUL, AW, SEW, BFC As required latest climate change guidance can be included. Take "no regrets" decisions in the design of developments which will contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change BFC, Developers As required impacts. For example, consider surface water exceedance pathways when designing the layout of developments.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 55
9 Summary and Recommendations
9.1 Water Cycle Study Summary The phase 2 outline Water Cycle Study has been carried out in cooperation with Thames Water and with the advice of the Environment Agency with respect to the water quality methodology. The overall assessment is that no strategic-scale water or wastewater constraints on growth have been identified within Bracknell Forest. Thames Water are in the process of preparing a growth study covering Bracknell Forest, but the timescale for this being completed did not fit with the preparation of the Bracknell Forest Local Plan. Thames Water has, however, made sufficient assurances regarding the primary area of concern around wastewater treatment capacity at Ascot, Bracknell and Easthampstead Park to conclude that no additional Phase 3 water cycle study is required. A site-by-site summary of the results of the assessments undertaken is included in Appendix A.
9.1.1 Development Scenarios and Policy Issues In September 2017 the UK Government entered into a consultation entitled "Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals"34. This set out a new standard methodology to calculate a local authority's Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for new housing. This would result in an increase in Bracknell Forest Council's OAN from 635 units/year to 670 units/year, an increase of 6% or 630 homes over the 18-year plan period. Although this is yet to be adopted, BFC have decided to use the higher figure in order to ensure the robustness of their housing supply, and this WCS is based on assessing growth at that rate over the plan period. This Water Cycle Study is an assessment of the impacts of planned development within Bracknell Forest. The SHELAA and supporting documents identified 92 sites and 6 clusters, in addition to a number already in the planning process and an estimated number through windfall. Sites based in neighbouring authority areas that may use infrastructure within Bracknell Forest are also taken into account. This Water Cycle Study is key evidence for deciding the final site allocations to meet growth needs within Bracknell Forest. Legal agreements under the Town and Country Planning Act Section 106 agreement, and Community Infrastructure Levy agreements are not intended to be used to obtain funding for water or wastewater infrastructure. It is not therefore necessary for BFC to identify requirements for developers to contribute towards the cost of upgrades in its Local Plan. The Water Industry Act sets out arrangements for connections to public sewers and water supply networks, and developers should ensure that they engage at an early stage with Affinity Water, South East Water and Thames Water to ensure that site specific capacity checks can be undertaken, and where necessary, additional infrastructure is constructed to accommodate the development. From April 2018, Affinity Water, South East Water and Thames Water will no longer seek specific developer contributions towards infrastructure upgrades, but instead the costs of all infrastructure upgrades required to accommodate growth across their supply areas will be factored into the connection charges paid by all developers. Upgrades to water resources and wastewater treatment works are funded through the company's business plans.
9.1.2 Water Resources The Phase 1 Scoping study concluded that the overall Red / Amber / Green (RAG) assessment for Bracknell Forest’s water resources is green, on the basis that there is sufficient time to address the supply and demand issues identified in the next WRMP. No further assessment of water resources was recommended for the Phase 2 Outline Water Cycle Study The Phase 1 WCS used the previous OAN of 635 units per annum to compare the council's planned growth with that allowed for by Affinity Water and South East Water in their Water Resource Management Plans (WRMPs). The proposed increase in the OAN is not considered to be of a scale which would alter the conclusions of the phase 1 WCS with respect to water resources, and therefore no further analysis of water resources has been included
34 DCLG (2017) Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals. Accessed online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation-proposals on: 30-11-2017
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 56
within this phase 2 study. This conclusion has been reviewed and agreed by Affinity Water and South East Water. Following preparation of the draft Phase 2 study, Affinity Water and South East Water published their draft WRMPs (dWRMPs) for the period 2020 to 2080. The dWRMPs have not been reviewed as part of this phase 2 study. Affinity Water and South East Water have confirmed that they do not consider that there are changes in their dWRMPs which would require the WCS to be updated.
9.1.3 Water Supply Infrastructure The Phase 1 study concluded that no additional assessments of water supply infrastructure were required within the Affinity Water or South East Water supply areas in this phase 2 outline WCS35.
9.1.4 Wastewater Collection The TWUL RAG assessment prepared for this outline study considered sites with a proposal for 10 or more dwellings. Of the 7136 sites assessed, 30 would require an upgrade to the sewerage network infrastructure. In 7 of these cases, (SAND3, SAND5, SAND6, SAND7, WINK14, WAR3 and WINK20), major constraints have been identified by Thames Water. Sewerage upgrades will be required at all clusters, with major constraints identified by TWUL at cluster 5. Early developer engagement with TWUL is essential to ensure that, where necessary, additional capacity can be provided prior to developments becoming occupied. No further phase 3 assessment of sewerage capacity is recommended. Thames Water's assessment was a combined assessment of sewerage capacity and wastewater treatment capacity for each site. Their conclusions in relation to wastewater treatment capacity are addressed, in combination with the headroom assessment prepared by JBA, in the wastewater treatment works flow permit assessment section below. Sewerage Undertakers have a duty under Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to provide sewerage and treat wastewater arising from new domestic development. Except where strategic upgrades are required to serve very large or multiple developments, infrastructure upgrades are usually only implemented following an application for a connection, adoption, or requisition from a developer. Early developer engagement with water companies is therefore essential to ensure that sewerage capacity can be provided without delaying development. Thames Water's preferred method of surface water disposal is using a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) discharging to ground or open watercourses, with connection to the sewerage system seen as the last option. Bracknell is, however, predominantly situated on clay and therefore infiltration is unviable across most of the Borough, meaning watercourses or public sewers are the only viable means of draining a site. The overall conclusions of the Phase 1 assessment remain, that surface water should be dealt with on site and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be incorporated. The discharge hierarchy should be followed.
9.1.5 Wastewater Treatment Works Flow Permit Assessment The assessment indicates that Ascot, Bracknell and Easthampstead Park WwTWs are all forecast to exceed their permitted dry weather flow as a result of planned growth in the preferred sites scenario during the plan period, and indeed that Ascot did exceed its permitted DWF in 2015. In the case of Bracknell WwTW, the future exceedance is as a
35 The water supply infrastructure assessment carried out for the Phase 1 WCS, including the addendum, did not cover a number of "late" sites under consideration by BFC since completion of the Phase 1 WCS. These omissions are considered to be of low consequence to the overall assessment of water supply infrastructure capacity, although, as with all development sites, early engagement between developer and water supplier is recommended to ensure that, where infrastructure upgrades are required, there is sufficient time available for these to be provided ahead of the development being occupied. 36 Including three sites of under 10 dwellings on which Thames Water commented in their consultation response to the draft Local Plan.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 57
result of planned growth in Bracknell Forest only. In the case of Ascot and Easthampstead Park, it is as a result of planned growth in both Bracknell Forest and in neighbouring authorities. It is therefore anticipated that these three WwTWs will require capacity upgrades during the plan period. TWUL have given Ascot WwTW an "amber" assessment. Following further work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this WCS, which has confirmed that current and future flows at Ascot can be managed within their permit by converting storm tank 1 into a balancing tank, the WCS concludes that this RAG assessment is appropriate. As practically all growth planned in the Ascot catchment to 2025 is within Windsor and Maidenhead, it would be advisable to provide a copy of this study to Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council's planners. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPAs and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Ascot catchment. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified by TWUL. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPA and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Bracknell catchment. TWUL's RAG assessment for the Phase 1 WCS gave Easthampstead Park a "red" score, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, and that major constraints have been identified. However following further work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this Phase 2 WCS, TWUL have confirmed that they are working towards a capacity upgrade during AMP7 (2020 to 2025), and therefore the final RAG assessment is "amber". As the great majority of growth planned in the Easthampstead Park catchment is within Wokingham, it would be advisable to provide a copy of this study to Wokingham Borough Council's planners. Subject to early engagement between developers, the LPAs and TWUL, the provision of wastewater treatment capacity should not be a barrier to the planned growth within the Easthampstead Park catchment. Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both Bracknell Forest and Hart District. Billingbear WwTW is a very small works, operating at its flow capacity. There is no planned growth in this catchment, and no capacity for even minor windfall development, without a treatment works upgrade being required.
9.1.6 Wastewater Treatment Works Odour Assessment The odour screening assessment carried out in the scoping study was repeated, to include additional sites identified since the scoping study, and using a revised method which takes into account the size of the WwTW. Results concluded that five sites and one cluster may be at risk of experiencing odour due to their proximity to existing WwTWs, and a further assessment should be conducted. All other sites are unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW Odour assessments, where the screening assessment indicates that they are required, should be undertaken by site developers. No additional assessment of odour impact is required in a Phase 3 WCS.
9.1.7 Water Quality Impact Assessment The water quality impacts of increased effluent discharges as a result of growth at Ascot, Bracknell, Easthampstead Park and Sandhurst WwTWs, were assessed using SIMCAT water quality models. The proposed levels of growth to be treated by Ascot would not lead to a deterioration, either of 10% or of class. The Bull Brook is not currently meeting Good class for Phosphorous. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, The Cut could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 58
At Bracknell WwTW, increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for BOD, Ammonia and Phosphate. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, The Cut could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. Increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment of Easthampstead Park WwTW are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for BOD and Ammonia. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, the Emm Brook immediately downstream of the WwTW could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. The model indicates that Good class would not be reached at the next downstream sampling point (PLDR0015), however this is due to inflows from Ash Ridge WwTW. The impacts of growth and treatment improvements at Ash Ridge have not been investigated, as this treatment works does not serve any settlements within Bracknell Forest. At Sandhurst WwTW, increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for Ammonia and Phosphorous. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. The Blackwater is not currently meeting Good class for Phosphorous, and Good class could not be achieved due to limitations of present-day Best Available Technology. The majority of development in the catchment is made up of completions and commitments during AMP6, principally 1,000 homes at Land at former TRL site, Nine Mile Ride (SALP policy SA5). Consequently, the predicted deterioration may occur early during the plan period (although this has not been tested). Following completion of the water quality modelling, JBA Consulting were made aware of the Environment Agency’s updated guidance on permitting phosphorous. This guidance, based on the findings of the national programme of phosphorous removal trials, approves a new, lower TAL (Technically Achievable Limit, the new terminology for Best Available Technology) of 0.25mg/l as an annual average. The modelling has not been run using this new TAL, but it is not considered that this would fundamentally change the findings of this study. A deterioration of greater than 10% in phosphorous is predicted in The Cut downstream of Bracknell WwTW, however this can be corrected by tightening the permit within the old TAL of 0.5mg/l. The new, lower TAL could potentially enable Good classification to be achieved for phosphorous in the Blackwater, however this has not been tested. An analysis of the potential impacts of reduced river flows as a result of climate change indicate that there is a significant risk of deterioration of water quality. It is expected that future River Basin Management Plans will investigate this risk further and consider how it can be mitigated. Wherever possible, plans should promote "no-regrets" decisions which enhance the resilience of river systems to climate change impacts, for example by promoting Catchment Based Approaches. The planned growth within Bracknell Forest and its neighbouring authorities can be accommodated without causing a deterioration in water quality for sanitary determinands and nutrients, so long as timely interventions to prevent deterioration are implemented by Thames Water and the Environment Agency. Particular attention is drawn to the need to ensure that deterioration does not occur as a result of ongoing committed development in the Sandhurst catchment during AMP6 (2015-2020). The planned growth within Bracknell and its neighbouring authorities would not prevent Good class from being achieved, however Good class is not currently achievable in the Blackwater due to the limitations of present-day Phosphorous removal technologies.
9.1.8 Flood Risk A detailed assessment of flood risk can be found within the Bracknell Forest Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (February 2018).
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 59
An assessment was carried out to determine whether increased discharges of treated effluent from each WwTW due to development within Bracknell Forest could lead to an increase in fluvial flood risk from the receiving watercourse. The assessment carried out in phase 1 was repeated incorporating the additional sites identified since the scoping study, and incorporating changes made to the allocation of WwTWs to development sites. This was carried out at all the WwTW that will receive additional flows from the identified development sites, and results showed that the impact of increased effluent flows is not predicted to have a significant impact upon flood risk in any of the receiving watercourses. Increases in discharges of treated wastewater effluent as a result of growth are not expected to significantly increase flood risk. No further assessment is required in a phase 3 WCS.
9.1.9 Environmental Constraints and Opportunities The Phase 1 study concluded that no additional assessment of environmental constraints and opportunities was required in this phase 2 outline WCS.
9.1.10 Climate Change A qualitative assessment was carried out at phase 1 to assess the potential impacts of climate change on the assessments made within this water cycle study. The assessment used a matrix which considers both the potential impact of climate change on the assessment in question, and the degree to which climate change has been considered in the information used to make the assessments contained within the WCS. The capacity of the sewerage system and the water quality of receiving water bodies stood out as two elements of the assessment where the consequences of climate change are expected to be high, but no account had been made of climate impacts in the assessments within the scoping report, and hence these assessments were given a "Red" RAG assessment for climate change impacts. For this phase 2 study, no further information has been received from Thames Water describing how climate change has been taken into account in the assessment of sewerage capacity, so the conclusion from the scoping study remains that climate change poses risks of significant detrimental impacts in the operation of the sewerage systems, and the assessment prepared by Thames Water has not taken these risks into account. Climate change impacts should be taken into consideration by Thames Water as part of their ongoing assessment of the impacts of growth within Bracknell Forest. An analysis of the potential impacts of reduced river flows as a result of climate change indicate that there is a significant risk of deterioration of water quality. It is expected that future River Basin Management Plans will investigate this risk further and consider how it can be mitigated. Wherever possible, plans should promote "no-regrets" decisions which enhance the resilience of river systems to climate change impacts, for example by promoting Catchment Based Approaches. No additional assessment of the impact of climate change is recommended in a Phase 3 Detailed WCS.
9.2 Timescales for implementing water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades The timescale required to implement any specific infrastructure upgrade will depend on many site- specific factors, including but not limited to the scale of works, engineering complexity, planning and environmental constraints, negotiation of land purchase, access and wayleave, ground conditions and traffic conditions. It is beyond the scope of this water cycle study to assess the timescales required to make individual infrastructure upgrades, however, Table 9-1, developed with advice from water companies, provides indicative timescales for different types and sizes of upgrade:
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 60
Table 9-1: Indicative timescales for implementing water infrastructure upgrades
Indicative project timescales for Trigger for water infrastructure upgrades or other company to assess Infrastructure type interventions requirements and
develop plans Minor Major Demand management New strategic asset Publication of LPA measures, e.g. water reuse Water resources Local Plans and minor new resource plant, reservoir: 5-20 associated updates e.g. borehole: 3-5 years years
Pre-development New supply mains, Localised supply pipe boosters, service Water supply enquiries upgrades: 1-2 years reservoirs, treatment Planning applications works 3-5 years
Pre-development Minor upgrade of Major upgrade or Wastewater treatment enquiries existing treatment new treatment works Planning applications works: 2-4 years 3-5 years
Pre-development New collector sewers Localised sewerage Sewerage enquiries or other strategic upgrades: 1-3 years Planning applications assets: 3-5 years As is emphasised throughout this study, early developer engagement with water companies is essential to ensure that water and wastewater providers have adequate time to provide infrastructure upgrades required to accommodate growth.
9.3 Safeguarding of sites The three water and wastewater utilities, Affinity Water, South East Water and Thames Water were asked whether there are any sites within Bracknell Forest which they would seek to have safeguarded from further development in the Local Plan, in order to protect the site for potential future strategic water and wastewater assets. No sites have been identified as requiring safeguarding at this stage.
9.4 Recommendations Table 9-2: All recommendations
Aspect Action Responsibility Timescale
Take into account wastewater infrastructure BFC constraints in phasing development in Ongoing partnership with Thames Water Thames Water Thames Water and developers will be expected to work closely and early in the planning promotion process to develop an outline Drainage Strategy for sites. The Outline Drainage strategy should set out the Wastewater following: collection What – What is required to serve the site. TW Where – Where are the assets / upgrades to Developers Ongoing be located. BFC When – When are the assets to be delivered (phasing). Which – Which delivery route is the developer going to use s104 s98 s106 etc. The Outline Drainage Strategy should be submitted as part of the planning application
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 61
Aspect Action Responsibility Timescale submission, and where required, used as a basis for a drainage planning condition to be set. The LLFA will seek to ensure pre- development discussions have taken place between TW and the developers. Developers will be expected to demonstrate to the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) that surface water from a site will be disposed using a sustainable drainage Developers Ongoing system (SuDS) with connection to surface LLFA water sewers seen as the last option. New connections for surface water to foul sewers will be resisted by the LLFA. Consider the available WwTW capacity when phasing development going to the same WwTW. This is particularly the case for developments to be served by Ascot BFC Ongoing WwTW, until such time as there is sufficient available evidence that headroom capacity is not an issue.
Report findings of growth study to BFC and TWUL Spring/Summer confirm capacity at Ascot going forwards.
Wastewater Provide Annual Monitoring Reports to treatment Thames Water detailing projected housing BFC Ongoing headroom growth in the Local Authority. Thames Water to assess growth demands as part of their wastewater asset planning BFC Ongoing activities and feedback to BFC if concerns arise. Provide a copy of the WCS to planning colleagues at Windsor and Maidenhead On completion Borough Council and Wokingham Borough BFC of Phase 2 Council and point out the conclusions WCS. relating to Ascot WwTW and Easthampstead Park WwTW. BFC should consider the available Water Local Plan environmental capacity at each settlement BFC quality preparation when assigning draft site allocations. Consider odour risk in the sites identified to BFC Ongoing Wastewater be at risk from nuisance odour. treatment Carry out an odour assessment for 'amber' Site odour Ongoing assessed sites. Developers Proposals to increase discharges to a Wastewater watercourse may also require a flood risk treatment activities environmental permit from the EA During design flood risk (in the case of discharges to Main River), or TW of WwTW from Ordinary Watercourse consent from the upgrades. increased Lead Local Flood Authority (in the case of effluent discharges to an Ordinary Watercourse).
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 62
Aspect Action Responsibility Timescale
When undertaking detailed assessments of EA, TWUL, environmental or asset capacity, consider AW, SEW, As required how the latest climate change guidance can BFC be included. Climate Take "no regrets" decisions in the design of change developments which will contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change BFC, As required impacts. For example, consider surface Developers water exceedance pathways when designing the layout of developments.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx 63
Appendices A Appendix - Site Tracker Spreadsheet
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx I
This page is intentionally left blank
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx II
Water Resources RAG descriptions Water Supply RAG descriptions WwTW Flow Capacity RAG descriptions Foul Sewerage RAG descriptions Surface Water Network RAG descriptions Odour Screening RAG descriptions Effluent flood risk RAG descriptions Water Quality RAG descriptions Adopted WRMP has planned for the increase in Sufficient Environmental Capacity. Proposed development Additional flow ≤5% of Q30. Low risk that increased discharges will demand, or sufficient time to address supply demand Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW has no significant impact on the water body's potential for increase fluvial flood risk. issues in the next WRMP. reaching GES. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed Good Ecological Status cannot be achieved due to current Insufficient evidence in adopted WRMP to confirm required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Site location is such that an odour impact assessment Additional flow ≥5% of Q30. Moderate risk that increased discharges growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have technology limits. Ensure proposed growth doesn't cause that the planned increase in demand can be met constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . is recommended will increase fluvial flood risk. been identified . significant deterioration. been identified . Adopted WRMP does not take into consideration the Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be Proposed development can be accommodated with a tighter Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints have Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed Additional flow ≥5% of Q100. High risk that increased discharges will planned increase in demand. Additional water required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints Site is in an area with confirmed WwTW odour issues. permit and upgrade to treatment. This is achievable with constraints have been identified. been identified. growth. Major constraints have been identified. increase fluvial flood risk. resources may be required. have been identified. current technology.
Environmental capacity could be a constraint to growth
Site information Water Supply Wastewater Flood risk Water Quality Potential Potential Company Foul Sewerage Surface Water Site boundary Effluent In study housing Water Resource Water Water Supply WwTW Flow Location of site Odour Screening Site Code Site Area (Ha) employment Water Company Water Resources Comments Water Supply Networks Comments Treating WwTW WwTW Flow Capacity Comments Sewerage Undertaker Sewerage catchment Network Foul Sewerage Network Capacity Comments Network Surface Water Network Capacity Comments distance from Odour screening comments discharge flood Effluent discharge flood risk Comments Water Quality RAG Water Quality Comments area? number Zone Resources RAG Networks RAG Capacity RAG relative to WwTW RAG (m2) Wastewater Capacity RAG capacity WwTW (m) risk RAG (units)
The impact of increased effluent flows is not 10/00452/REM See main report for results specific to Yes 2.60 72 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber 12/00133/REM Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 09/00141/FUL Yes 0.10 7 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 10/00522/REM Yes 2.19 81 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 11/00062/REM Yes 2.54 115 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not 11/00682/OUT See main report for results specific to Yes 2.80 67 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber 13/00784/REM Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 11/00878/REM Yes 0.30 28 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 12/00199/REM Yes 2.00 85 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 12/00261/REM Yes 3.00 78 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 12/00432/MAJOR No 45 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 12/00434/FUL Yes 5.40 22 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not 12/00476/OUT See main report for results specific to Yes 0.38 311 1000 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber 13/01068/REM Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not 12/00512/REM See main report for results specific to Yes 1.34 59 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber 13/00064/REM Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 12/00593/FUL Yes 0.47 13 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 12/00907/REM Yes 1.40 55 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 13/00074/FUL Yes 1.50 64 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 13/00296/FUL Yes 0.14 8 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 13/00337/REM Yes 1.78 43 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not 13/00441/OUT See main report for results specific to Yes 0.92 123 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber 15/00362/REM Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 13/00575/OUT Yes 102.40 1000 5000 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Red Limited capacity at Eashampstead, Bracknell OK Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 13/00858/FUL Yes 9.20 38 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 13/00966/FUL Yes 1.40 24 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 13/01007/OUT Yes 4.30 87 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not 13/01072/OUT See main report for results specific to Yes 2.30 73 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber 14/01010/REM Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 13/02007/OUT Yes 57.30 447 2500 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/00040/REM Yes 1.20 47 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. 14/00315/OUT The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00872/REM Yes 29.94 377 1500 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green In catchment solution Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) 15/00873/REM risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/00437/FUL Yes 0.48 36 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/00684/PAC* Yes 0.01 88 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/00711/FUL Yes 0.54 8 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/00713/CLPUD Yes 1.20 ‐17 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/00858/FUL Yes 0.35 10 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/01095/FUL Yes 0.50 72 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/01186/PAC Yes 0.60 16 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/01204/FUL Yes 0.80 14 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 14/01335/FUL Yes 0.88 7 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00004/FUL* Yes 0.42 48 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead 15/00023/FUL Yes 0.40 5 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00082/FUL Yes 0.15 6 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00163/REM Yes 2.90 93 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00209/FUL Yes 0.70 4 SEW SEW Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00212/FUL Yes 0.22 92 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00284/FUL Yes 0.48 0 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00312/FUL Yes 12 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Completed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00366/FUL* Yes 1.19 36 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00403/FUL Yes 0.45 41 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00452/OUT Yes 28 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00456/FUL Yes 0.55 14 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. Water Resources RAG descriptions Water Supply RAG descriptions WwTW Flow Capacity RAG descriptions Foul Sewerage RAG descriptions Surface Water Network RAG descriptions Odour Screening RAG descriptions Effluent flood risk RAG descriptions Water Quality RAG descriptions Adopted WRMP has planned for the increase in Sufficient Environmental Capacity. Proposed development Additional flow ≤5% of Q30. Low risk that increased discharges will demand, or sufficient time to address supply demand Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW has no significant impact on the water body's potential for increase fluvial flood risk. issues in the next WRMP. reaching GES. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed Good Ecological Status cannot be achieved due to current Insufficient evidence in adopted WRMP to confirm required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Site location is such that an odour impact assessment Additional flow ≥5% of Q30. Moderate risk that increased discharges growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have technology limits. Ensure proposed growth doesn't cause that the planned increase in demand can be met constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . is recommended will increase fluvial flood risk. been identified . significant deterioration. been identified . Adopted WRMP does not take into consideration the Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be Proposed development can be accommodated with a tighter Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints have Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed Additional flow ≥5% of Q100. High risk that increased discharges will planned increase in demand. Additional water required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints Site is in an area with confirmed WwTW odour issues. permit and upgrade to treatment. This is achievable with constraints have been identified. been identified. growth. Major constraints have been identified. increase fluvial flood risk. resources may be required. have been identified. current technology.
Environmental capacity could be a constraint to growth
Site information Water Supply Wastewater Flood risk Water Quality Potential Potential Company Foul Sewerage Surface Water Site boundary Effluent In study housing Water Resource Water Water Supply WwTW Flow Location of site Odour Screening Site Code Site Area (Ha) employment Water Company Water Resources Comments Water Supply Networks Comments Treating WwTW WwTW Flow Capacity Comments Sewerage Undertaker Sewerage catchment Network Foul Sewerage Network Capacity Comments Network Surface Water Network Capacity Comments distance from Odour screening comments discharge flood Effluent discharge flood risk Comments Water Quality RAG Water Quality Comments area? number Zone Resources RAG Networks RAG Capacity RAG relative to WwTW RAG (m2) Wastewater Capacity RAG capacity WwTW (m) risk RAG (units)
The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00464/FUL Yes 0.90 13 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00536/FUL* Yes 0.02 14 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00547/FUL Yes 1.65 14 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00618/FUL Yes 0.26 ‐7 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00646/REM Yes 65 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00647/REM Yes 58 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00731/FUL Yes 6 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/00888/FUL Yes 0.19 8 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/01014/FUL Yes 0.24 2 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/01035/FUL Yes 193 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/01041/FUL Yes 0.11 5 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/01082/FUL* Yes 30 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 15/01258/FUL Yes 0.65 8 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to No 13 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) 15/02131/FUL risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 16/00020/OUT* Yes 400 10000 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 16/00102/FUL Yes 14 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 16/00230/FUL Yes 7 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 16/00331/FUL Yes 9 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 16/00626/FUL Yes 60 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead 5WI002 No 9.77 342 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead 5WI011 No 3.77 132 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead 5WI014 No 4.06 142 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead 5WI018 No 39.68 1389 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead 5WI019 No 6.14 215 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook)
TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no TW RAG assessment gave this site an Amber rating for the combined assessment of significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been wastewater infrastructure and treatment capacity. No comment was made on reason for identified by TWUL. this rating. The RAG score for foul sewerage has been reset to Green on the basis of the TW TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: Infrastructure response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: Infrastructure at the wastewater at the wastewater treatment works is operating close to capacity. It is The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment works is operating close to capacity. It is recommended that the developer liaise See main report for results specific to BIN1 Yes 4.92 45 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber recommended that the developer liaise with Thames Water at the earliest TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 855 NW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to determine the magnitude of spare Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) opportunity to determine the magnitude of spare capacity in the system risk in the receiving watercourse. capacity in the system and a suitable connection point. As set out in the Planning Policy and a suitable connection point. As set out in the Planning Policy Guidance, Guidance, early contact with statutory undertakers (such as Thames Water) is early contact with statutory undertakers (such as Thames Water) is recommended. On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure recommended. On the information available to date we do not envisage concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site. infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site.
TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that capability in relation to this site. Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN10 Yes 8.44 13 465 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green TW Comment on cluster 1: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2483 N Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be storage or upgrades development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. required on site and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say categorically say what upgrades if any may be required to the local network.
TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that capability in relation to this site. Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN11 Yes 1.90 22 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green TW Comment on cluster 1: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2783 N Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be storage or upgrades development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. required on site and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say categorically say what upgrades if any may be reuired to the local network. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information available to The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN12 Yes 0.31 8 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 2708 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) capability in relation to this site. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to BIN13 Yes 0.79 0 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 2624 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) infrastructure have been identified . risk in the receiving watercourse. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN14 Yes 0.40 0 480 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 1665 SSE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN15 Yes 0.62 7 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 2222 NNE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN2 Yes 0.84 19 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 936 ENE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Housing development treated as Housing development treated as TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that additional to current discharge. In additional to current discharge. In The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN4 Yes 1.87 35 5600 SEW RZ4 Green reality it will replace current Green reality it will replace current TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 854 NE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) discharge (currently a garden discharge (currently a garden risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. centre) centre) TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information available to The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN5 Yes 1.85 40 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure Not assessed 1437 NE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) capability in relation to this site. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information available to The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN6 Yes 1.57 34 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure Not assessed 1626 NNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) capability in relation to this site. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Water Resources RAG descriptions Water Supply RAG descriptions WwTW Flow Capacity RAG descriptions Foul Sewerage RAG descriptions Surface Water Network RAG descriptions Odour Screening RAG descriptions Effluent flood risk RAG descriptions Water Quality RAG descriptions Adopted WRMP has planned for the increase in Sufficient Environmental Capacity. Proposed development Additional flow ≤5% of Q30. Low risk that increased discharges will demand, or sufficient time to address supply demand Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW has no significant impact on the water body's potential for increase fluvial flood risk. issues in the next WRMP. reaching GES. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed Good Ecological Status cannot be achieved due to current Insufficient evidence in adopted WRMP to confirm required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Site location is such that an odour impact assessment Additional flow ≥5% of Q30. Moderate risk that increased discharges growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have technology limits. Ensure proposed growth doesn't cause that the planned increase in demand can be met constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . is recommended will increase fluvial flood risk. been identified . significant deterioration. been identified . Adopted WRMP does not take into consideration the Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be Proposed development can be accommodated with a tighter Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints have Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed Additional flow ≥5% of Q100. High risk that increased discharges will planned increase in demand. Additional water required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints Site is in an area with confirmed WwTW odour issues. permit and upgrade to treatment. This is achievable with constraints have been identified. been identified. growth. Major constraints have been identified. increase fluvial flood risk. resources may be required. have been identified. current technology.
Environmental capacity could be a constraint to growth
Site information Water Supply Wastewater Flood risk Water Quality Potential Potential Company Foul Sewerage Surface Water Site boundary Effluent In study housing Water Resource Water Water Supply WwTW Flow Location of site Odour Screening Site Code Site Area (Ha) employment Water Company Water Resources Comments Water Supply Networks Comments Treating WwTW WwTW Flow Capacity Comments Sewerage Undertaker Sewerage catchment Network Foul Sewerage Network Capacity Comments Network Surface Water Network Capacity Comments distance from Odour screening comments discharge flood Effluent discharge flood risk Comments Water Quality RAG Water Quality Comments area? number Zone Resources RAG Networks RAG Capacity RAG relative to WwTW RAG (m2) Wastewater Capacity RAG capacity WwTW (m) risk RAG (units)
Not assessed for WCS as <10 dwellings. JBA assigned Green RAG based on very small site size. TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no infrastructure capability in relation to this site. See main report for results specific to BIN7 Yes 0.29 5 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 1934 NNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been TW Comment on cluster 1: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be storage or upgrades required on site and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say categorically say what upgrades if any may be reuired to the local network.
Part of AMP 6 Growth Solution. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TW Comment on cluster 1: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BIN8 Yes 41.59 540 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be storage or upgrades Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 1625 N Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) required on site and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. categorically say what upgrades if any may be reuired to the local network.
TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TW Comment on cluster 1: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no benefits by being close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be storage or upgrades See main report for results specific to BIN9 Yes 18.27 215 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2405 N Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been required on site and around to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot say Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. categorically say what upgrades if any may be required to the local network.
TWUL comment: Limited capacity at Easthampstead (WwTW), Bracknell (WwTW) OK TWUL's RAG assessment for the Phase 1 WCS gave Easthampstead Park a "red" score, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve TWUL gave this site a Red RAG with the comment: Limited capacity at Easthampstead Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead BRA1 Yes 38.38 605 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber proposed growth, and that major constraints have been identified. Easthampstead Park Green (WwTW), Bracknell (WwTW). No evidence stated of foul sewerage issues, therefore RAG Amber incorporated. The hierarchy of surface water disposal should be 414 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park However, following further work undertaken by TWUL during the set to green by JBA followed. risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) preparation of this Phase 2 WCS, TWUL have confirmed that they are working towards a capacity upgrade during AMP7 (2020 to 2025), and therefore the final RAG assessment is "amber". 16/00201/FUL Yes 0.09 12 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Green Green The impact of increased effluent flows is not Amber See main report for results specific to
TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BRA11 Yes 0.61 212 3050 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater Not assessed 2427 ESE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered
TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BRA12 Yes 0.48 92 2350 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater Not assessed 2477 ESE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information available to The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BRA13 Yes 1.06 69 5300 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure Not assessed 2205 ESE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) capability in relation to this site. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL.
TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BRA14 Yes 0.57 144 5700 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater Not assessed 2105 ESE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered.
TW WCS comment: May need local upgrades. TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no anticipated from this development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required See main report for results specific to BRA15 Yes 0.94 267 9400 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed 2077 ESE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered
TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TWUL gave this site a Red RAG with the comment: Limited capacity at Easthampstead Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BRA2 Yes 22.79 114 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green (WwTW), Bracknell (WwTW). No evidence stated of foul sewerage issues, therefore RAG Amber incorporated. The hierarchy of surface water disposal should be 768 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) set to green by JBA followed. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL's RAG assessment for the Phase 1 WCS gave TWUL gave this site a Red RAG with the comment: STW capacity a concern. Easthampstead Park a "red" score, indicating that treatment TWUL response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, and that major capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this constraints have been identified. However, following further work development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this Phase 2 WCS, capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater BRA3 Yes 22.66 264 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Amber Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 12 WSW Amber Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park TWUL have confirmed that they are working towards a capacity network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a development. risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) upgrade during AMP7 (2020 to 2025), and therefore the final RAG detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is assessment is "amber". required, where, when and how it will be delivered. No evidence stated of foul sewerage issues, therefore RAG set to amber by JBA (in line with BRA4 which is also within Cluster 3). TWUL's RAG assessment for the Phase 1 WCS gave TWUL response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network Easthampstead Park a "red" score, indicating that treatment capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, and that major development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead constraints have been identified. However, following further work BRA4 Yes 34.24 258 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Amber capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 255 NW Amber Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this Phase 2 WCS, network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a development. risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) TWUL have confirmed that they are working towards a capacity detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is upgrade during AMP7 (2020 to 2025), and therefore the final RAG assessment is "amber". required, where, when and how it will be delivered. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BRA5 Yes 0.27 33 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 2751 N Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works is operating close to capacity. It is recommended that the TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that developer liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to determine the magnitude The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to BRA6 Yes 1.17 67 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green of spare capacity in the system and a suitable connection point. As set out in the Planning Not assessed 2306 NNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) Policy Guidance, early contact with statutory undertakers (such as Thames Water) is risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. recommended. On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site.
TW comment on WCS: Look to reduce surface flows. TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Strategic drainage The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead See main report for results specific to BRA7 Yes 1.16 200 11600 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed 2179 ESE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been of the development. Where there is a wastewater network capacity constraint the Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered
Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to BRA8 Yes 0.50 0 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 671 SSE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) infrastructure have been identified . risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to 16/00962/FUL Yes 0.07 12 1148 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead 15/01261/FUL Yes 0.14 10 136 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to HA30 No 35 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to HA31 No 10 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to HA32 No 250 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to HA33 No 75 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to HA34 No 230 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to HA35 No 53 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to HA36 No 28 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. Water Resources RAG descriptions Water Supply RAG descriptions WwTW Flow Capacity RAG descriptions Foul Sewerage RAG descriptions Surface Water Network RAG descriptions Odour Screening RAG descriptions Effluent flood risk RAG descriptions Water Quality RAG descriptions Adopted WRMP has planned for the increase in Sufficient Environmental Capacity. Proposed development Additional flow ≤5% of Q30. Low risk that increased discharges will demand, or sufficient time to address supply demand Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW has no significant impact on the water body's potential for increase fluvial flood risk. issues in the next WRMP. reaching GES. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed Good Ecological Status cannot be achieved due to current Insufficient evidence in adopted WRMP to confirm required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Site location is such that an odour impact assessment Additional flow ≥5% of Q30. Moderate risk that increased discharges growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have technology limits. Ensure proposed growth doesn't cause that the planned increase in demand can be met constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . is recommended will increase fluvial flood risk. been identified . significant deterioration. been identified . Adopted WRMP does not take into consideration the Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be Proposed development can be accommodated with a tighter Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints have Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed Additional flow ≥5% of Q100. High risk that increased discharges will planned increase in demand. Additional water required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints Site is in an area with confirmed WwTW odour issues. permit and upgrade to treatment. This is achievable with constraints have been identified. been identified. growth. Major constraints have been identified. increase fluvial flood risk. resources may be required. have been identified. current technology.
Environmental capacity could be a constraint to growth
Site information Water Supply Wastewater Flood risk Water Quality Potential Potential Company Foul Sewerage Surface Water Site boundary Effluent In study housing Water Resource Water Water Supply WwTW Flow Location of site Odour Screening Site Code Site Area (Ha) employment Water Company Water Resources Comments Water Supply Networks Comments Treating WwTW WwTW Flow Capacity Comments Sewerage Undertaker Sewerage catchment Network Foul Sewerage Network Capacity Comments Network Surface Water Network Capacity Comments distance from Odour screening comments discharge flood Effluent discharge flood risk Comments Water Quality RAG Water Quality Comments area? number Zone Resources RAG Networks RAG Capacity RAG relative to WwTW RAG (m2) Wastewater Capacity RAG capacity WwTW (m) risk RAG (units)
The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to HA37 No 10 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to SAND1 Yes 2.95 0 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green Capacity available to serve the proposed growth TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 2324 SSE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to See main report for results specific to SAND2 Yes 1.15 7 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 2417 SSE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) Bracknell Forest and Hart District. risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to See main report for results specific to SAND3 Yes 30.30 530 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both TWUL Sandhurst Red Local Flooding ‐ Sites in Sandhurst likely to require catchment study / upgrades Not assessed 1464 SE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) Bracknell Forest and Hart District. risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to SAND4 Yes 2.40 0 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green Capacity available to serve the proposed growth TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 970 SE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse.
Local Flooding ‐ Sites in Sandhurst likely to require catchment study / upgrades. TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Significant infrastructure upgrades are likely to be required to ensure sufficient treatment capacity is available to serve this development. Thames Water would welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Local Planning Authority and the developer to better understand and effectively plan for the sewage treatment infrastructure needs required to serve this development. It is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure. For example: Sewage The impact of increased effluent flows is not Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to See main report for results specific to SAND5 Yes 8.88 217 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both TWUL Sandhurst Red Treatment Works upgrades can take 18 months to 3 years to design and build. Not assessed 2623 SSE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) Bracknell Forest and Hart District. Implementing new technologies and the construction of a major treatment works extension risk in the receiving watercourse. or new treatment works could take up to ten years The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application.
The impact of increased effluent flows is not Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to See main report for results specific to SAND6 Yes 7.27 127 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both TWUL Sandhurst Red Local Flooding ‐ Sites in Sandhurst likely to require catchment study / upgrades Not assessed 1464 SE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) Bracknell Forest and Hart District. risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to See main report for results specific to SAND7 Yes 6.81 55 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both TWUL Sandhurst Red Local Flooding ‐ Sites in Sandhurst likely to require catchment study / upgrades Not assessed 2653 SSE Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) Bracknell Forest and Hart District. risk in the receiving watercourse. The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to SHL272 No 88 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Not assessed ‐ not in Bracknell Forest Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) risk in the receiving watercourse. TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works is operating close to capacity. It is recommended that the developer liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to determine the magnitude of spare capacity in the system and a suitable connection point. As set out in the Planning Policy Guidance, early contact with statutory undertakers (such as Thames Water) is TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that recommended. The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR10 Yes 4.43 96 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage Not assessed 2081 WNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR11 Yes 0.96 13 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2780 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR12 Yes 4.13 85 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2679 WNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR13 Yes 5.71 85 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2787 WNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR14 Yes 0.80 15 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2868 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR15 Yes 4.12 65 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2969 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR16 Yes 3.03 41 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Amber incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2960 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR17 Yes 0.29 5 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 3361 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR18 Yes 2.68 34 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 2535 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR19 Yes 2.60 9 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 2536 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR20 Yes 11.25 137 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed 1561 WNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR21 Yes 1.70 38 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 3433 WSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no incorperated. There are no surface water sewers near the See main report for results specific to WAR22 Yes 2.10 43 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Amber 2835 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been development. Note WAR22 is part of cluster 7, which is the main Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. part of Cluster 4, but WAR22 is not part of Cluster 4. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR23 Yes 20.12 432 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Depends on SPS/Connection point Not assessed 575 NW Amber Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR24 Yes 1.13 17 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 1324 WNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR3 Yes 247.51 1200 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Red TWUL did not comment on reason for this site being Red. Not assessed 1105 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Actual use may be a 60 bed care Actual use may be a 60 bed care TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not home, not residential. Detailed home, not residential. Detailed treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR4 Yes 1.30 25 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 1148 N Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber assessment required at planning assessment required at planning significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. stage. stage. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR5 Yes 16.79 251 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Near STW Not assessed 651 N Amber Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR6 Yes 23.11 405 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed 1033 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR7 Yes 0.78 23 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 1916 NW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR8 Yes 0.53 9 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 1810 WNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Water Resources RAG descriptions Water Supply RAG descriptions WwTW Flow Capacity RAG descriptions Foul Sewerage RAG descriptions Surface Water Network RAG descriptions Odour Screening RAG descriptions Effluent flood risk RAG descriptions Water Quality RAG descriptions Adopted WRMP has planned for the increase in Sufficient Environmental Capacity. Proposed development Additional flow ≤5% of Q30. Low risk that increased discharges will demand, or sufficient time to address supply demand Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW has no significant impact on the water body's potential for increase fluvial flood risk. issues in the next WRMP. reaching GES. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed Good Ecological Status cannot be achieved due to current Insufficient evidence in adopted WRMP to confirm required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Site location is such that an odour impact assessment Additional flow ≥5% of Q30. Moderate risk that increased discharges growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have technology limits. Ensure proposed growth doesn't cause that the planned increase in demand can be met constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . is recommended will increase fluvial flood risk. been identified . significant deterioration. been identified . Adopted WRMP does not take into consideration the Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be Proposed development can be accommodated with a tighter Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints have Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed Additional flow ≥5% of Q100. High risk that increased discharges will planned increase in demand. Additional water required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints Site is in an area with confirmed WwTW odour issues. permit and upgrade to treatment. This is achievable with constraints have been identified. been identified. growth. Major constraints have been identified. increase fluvial flood risk. resources may be required. have been identified. current technology.
Environmental capacity could be a constraint to growth
Site information Water Supply Wastewater Flood risk Water Quality Potential Potential Company Foul Sewerage Surface Water Site boundary Effluent In study housing Water Resource Water Water Supply WwTW Flow Location of site Odour Screening Site Code Site Area (Ha) employment Water Company Water Resources Comments Water Supply Networks Comments Treating WwTW WwTW Flow Capacity Comments Sewerage Undertaker Sewerage catchment Network Foul Sewerage Network Capacity Comments Network Surface Water Network Capacity Comments distance from Odour screening comments discharge flood Effluent discharge flood risk Comments Water Quality RAG Water Quality Comments area? number Zone Resources RAG Networks RAG Capacity RAG relative to WwTW RAG (m2) Wastewater Capacity RAG capacity WwTW (m) risk RAG (units)
TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works is operating close to capacity. It is recommended that the TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that developer liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to determine the magnitude The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WAR9 Yes 1.29 33 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green of spare capacity in the system and a suitable connection point. As set out in the Planning Not assessed 1971 WNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) Policy Guidance, early contact with statutory undertakers (such as Thames Water) is risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. recommended. On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to Windfall ‐ Binfield Yes 167 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not Windfall ‐ Bracknell treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to Yes 319 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Town significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL's RAG assessment for the Phase 1 WCS gave Easthampstead Park a "red" score, indicating that treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, and that major The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to Easthampstead constraints have been identified. However, following further work Windfall ‐ Crowthorne Yes 89 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Amber TWUL Easthampstead Park Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Park undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this Phase 2 WCS, risk in the receiving watercourse. Brook) TWUL have confirmed that they are working towards a capacity upgrade during AMP7 (2020 to 2025), and therefore the final RAG assessment is "amber". The impact of increased effluent flows is not Windfall ‐ Sandhurst Sandhurst WwTW is forecast to have sufficient headroom capacity to See main report for results specific to Yes 76 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Sandhurst Green accommodate additional flows as a result of planned growth in both TWUL Sandhurst Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Town Sandhurst WwTW (Blackwater) Bracknell Forest and Hart District. risk in the receiving watercourse. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to Windfall ‐ Warfield Yes 306 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to Windfall ‐ Winkfield Yes 283 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK1 Yes 1.21 27 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 3762 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Site is within WINK 14 which is part of Cluster 5. Comment for The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no Cluster 5: Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS See main report for results specific to WINK10 Yes 10.04 150 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Depends on Connection Point small 175mm sewer could be problematic Red 2696 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been should be incorperated. There are no surface water sewers near Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. the development. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Site is within WINK 14 which is part of Cluster 5. Comment for The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no Cluster 5: Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS See main report for results specific to WINK11 Yes 4.25 81 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Upgrades may be required depending on level of development in Winkworth Red 2520 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been should be incorperated. There are no surface water sewers near Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. the development. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Site is within WINK 14 which is part of Cluster 5. Comment for The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no Cluster 5: Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS See main report for results specific to WINK12 Yes 0.53 9 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Red 2479 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been should be incorperated. There are no surface water sewers near Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. the development. Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings, however note TWUL comment on cluster 5: Due to the size of the development some network enhancements very likely, therefore set to Amber by JBA.
TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TWUL response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK13 Yes 0.28 7 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this Red incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2499 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered.
TWUL comment on cluster 5: Due to the size of the development some network enhancements very likely.
TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TWUL response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should be The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this See main report for results specific to WINK14 Yes 59.60 938 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Red Red incorporated. There are no surface water sewers near the 2496 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered.
TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information available to The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK15 Yes 2.48 48 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure Not assessed 2273 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) capability in relation to this site. risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to WINK16 Yes 4.63 0 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 1865 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) infrastructure have been identified . risk in the receiving watercourse. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK17 Yes 3.16 46 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 1848 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK18 Yes 1.71 13 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 1615 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to WINK19 Yes 1.12 0 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 1239 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) infrastructure have been identified . risk in the receiving watercourse. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK2 Yes 0.55 12 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 3866 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL.
TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Significant infrastructure upgrades are likely to be required to ensure sufficient treatment capacity is available to serve this development. Thames Water would welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Local Planning Authority and the developer to better understand and effectively plan for the sewage treatment infrastructure needs required to serve this development. It is important TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure. For example: The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no Sewage Treatment Works upgrades can take 18 months to 3 years to design and build. See main report for results specific to WINK20 Yes 13.02 278 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Red Not assessed 877 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Implementing new technologies and the construction of a major treatment works extension Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. or new treatment works could take up to ten years The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application
Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Significant infrastructure upgrades are likely to be required to ensure sufficient treatment capacity is available to serve this development. Thames Water would welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Local The impact of increased effluent flows is not Planning Authority and the developer to better understand and effectively plan for the See main report for results specific to 16/01266/FUL Yes 7.66 59 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Green Not assessed Not assessed, site status is Committed 663 SW Amber Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow sewage treatment infrastructure needs required to serve this development. It is important Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. Analysis of the 2013‐15 flow data, indicates that Ascot WwTW exceeded its not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure. For example: DWF permit in 2015, and will continue to do so. The EA have advised that Sewage Treatment Works upgrades can take 18 months to 3 years to design and build. this is the subject of an ongoing investigation by TWUL. For this reason, Implementing new technologies and the construction of a major treatment works extension the final RAG score has been set as Red. or new treatment works could take up to ten years The wastewater network capacity in this
TWUL WCS comment: Depends on Ascot STW capacity going forward. TW response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand Comment from (now removed) clusetr 6 of which WINK22 was a The impact of increased effluent flows is not anticipated from this development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required part: Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS should See main report for results specific to WINK22 Yes 45.78 450 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Amber Not assessed 80 S Amber Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow TWUL have given Ascot WwTW an "amber" assessment. Following further to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is be incorperated. There are no surface water sewers near the Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this WCS, which has a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water development. confirmed that current and future flows at Ascot can be managed within and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what their permit by converting storm tank 1 into a balancing tank, the WCS infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered concludes that this RAG assessment is appropriate. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK23 Yes 7.60 80 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Local Upgrades possibly required to take flows in the immediate vicinity Not assessed 1024 WSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Water Resources RAG descriptions Water Supply RAG descriptions WwTW Flow Capacity RAG descriptions Foul Sewerage RAG descriptions Surface Water Network RAG descriptions Odour Screening RAG descriptions Effluent flood risk RAG descriptions Water Quality RAG descriptions Adopted WRMP has planned for the increase in Sufficient Environmental Capacity. Proposed development Additional flow ≤5% of Q30. Low risk that increased discharges will demand, or sufficient time to address supply demand Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW has no significant impact on the water body's potential for increase fluvial flood risk. issues in the next WRMP. reaching GES. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed Good Ecological Status cannot be achieved due to current Insufficient evidence in adopted WRMP to confirm required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Site location is such that an odour impact assessment Additional flow ≥5% of Q30. Moderate risk that increased discharges growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have technology limits. Ensure proposed growth doesn't cause that the planned increase in demand can be met constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have no significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been identified . is recommended will increase fluvial flood risk. been identified . significant deterioration. been identified . Adopted WRMP does not take into consideration the Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be Proposed development can be accommodated with a tighter Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints have Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed Additional flow ≥5% of Q100. High risk that increased discharges will planned increase in demand. Additional water required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints Site is in an area with confirmed WwTW odour issues. permit and upgrade to treatment. This is achievable with constraints have been identified. been identified. growth. Major constraints have been identified. increase fluvial flood risk. resources may be required. have been identified. current technology.
Environmental capacity could be a constraint to growth
Site information Water Supply Wastewater Flood risk Water Quality Potential Potential Company Foul Sewerage Surface Water Site boundary Effluent In study housing Water Resource Water Water Supply WwTW Flow Location of site Odour Screening Site Code Site Area (Ha) employment Water Company Water Resources Comments Water Supply Networks Comments Treating WwTW WwTW Flow Capacity Comments Sewerage Undertaker Sewerage catchment Network Foul Sewerage Network Capacity Comments Network Surface Water Network Capacity Comments distance from Odour screening comments discharge flood Effluent discharge flood risk Comments Water Quality RAG Water Quality Comments area? number Zone Resources RAG Networks RAG Capacity RAG relative to WwTW RAG (m2) Wastewater Capacity RAG capacity WwTW (m) risk RAG (units)
TWUL have given Ascot WwTW an "amber" assessment. Following further The impact of increased effluent flows is not work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this WCS, which has See main report for results specific to WINK24 Yes 1.68 23 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Green Not assessed 1622 WSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow confirmed that current and future flows at Ascot can be managed within Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. their permit by converting storm tank 1 into a balancing tank, the WCS concludes that this RAG assessment is appropriate. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK25 Yes 1.35 29 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 1960 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL.
TWUL have given Ascot WwTW an "amber" assessment. Following further The impact of increased effluent flows is not work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this WCS, which has See main report for results specific to WINK26 Yes 4.68 17 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Green Not assessed 3266 WNW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow confirmed that current and future flows at Ascot can be managed within Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. their permit by converting storm tank 1 into a balancing tank, the WCS concludes that this RAG assessment is appropriate.
TWUL have given Ascot WwTW an "amber" assessment. Following further The impact of increased effluent flows is not work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this WCS, which has See main report for results specific to WINK27 Yes 1.69 31 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Green Not assessed 4016 NW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow confirmed that current and future flows at Ascot can be managed within Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. their permit by converting storm tank 1 into a balancing tank, the WCS concludes that this RAG assessment is appropriate. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK28 Yes 0.55 8 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 2844 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK29 Yes 11.37 148 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed 2981 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK3 Yes 0.36 9 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 5601 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to serve The impact of increased effluent flows is not See main report for results specific to WINK30 Yes 11.67 0 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the provision of this TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 3163 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) infrastructure have been identified . risk in the receiving watercourse. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK31 Yes 7.22 90 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL comment: Local (sewer) flooding Not assessed 5520 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK32 Yes 0.74 5 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 1359 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK33 Yes 1.30 7 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 1342 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings. However, TW response to Draft Local Plan The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no Consultation, 26/03/2018: On the information available to date we do not envisage See main report for results specific to WINK34 Yes 3.69 6 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 766 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. site. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK35 Yes 4.46 94 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Not assessed 2671 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK36 Yes 0.44 9 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 4055 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL.
TWUL have given Ascot WwTW an "amber" assessment. Following further The impact of increased effluent flows is not work undertaken by TWUL during the preparation of this WCS, which has See main report for results specific to WINK37 Yes 1.28 0 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Ascot Amber TWUL Ascot Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings Not assessed Not assessed ‐ fewer than 10 dwellings 1321 W Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Yellow confirmed that current and future flows at Ascot can be managed within Ascot WwTW (Bull Brook) risk in the receiving watercourse. their permit by converting storm tank 1 into a balancing tank, the WCS concludes that this RAG assessment is appropriate. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK4 Yes 1.07 23 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 5075 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK5 Yes 0.60 10 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 4978 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. Potential for site to be commercial Potential for site to be commercial TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that rather than residential. Residential rather than residential. Residential The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK6 Yes 5.82 54 AfW WRZ6 Green development is likely to be worse‐ Amber development is likely to be worse‐ TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 5243 SW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) case for water demand, therefore case for water demand, therefore risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. residential option considered. residential option considered. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no See main report for results specific to WINK7 Yes 1.35 21 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Green Not assessed 2872 S Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Site is within WINK 14 which is part of Cluster 5. Comment for The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no Cluster 5: Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS See main report for results specific to WINK8 Yes 8.33 125 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber Red 2696 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been should be incorperated. There are no surface water sewers near Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. the development. TWUL have given Bracknell WwTW an "amber" assessment, indicating that Site is within WINK 14 which is part of Cluster 5. Comment for The impact of increased effluent flows is not treatment upgrades will be required to serve proposed growth, but no Cluster 5: Surface water should be dealt with on site and SUDS See main report for results specific to WINK9 Yes 17.31 216 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber May need local upgrades Red 2982 SSW Green Green predicted to have a significant impact upon flood Amber significant constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have been should be incorperated. There are no surface water sewers near Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) risk in the receiving watercourse. identified by TWUL. the development. Adopted WRMP has planned for the increase in Sufficient Environmental Capacity. Proposed development Additional flow ≤5% of Q30. Low risk that increased demand, or sufficient time to address supply demand Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Capacity available to serve the proposed growth Site is unlikely to be impacted by odour from WwTW has no significant impact on the water body's potential for discharges will increase fluvial flood risk. issues in the next WRMP. reaching GES. Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to Infrastructure and/or treatment work upgrades are required to Good Ecological Status cannot be achieved due to current Insufficient evidence in adopted WRMP to confirm required to serve proposed growth, but no significant required to serve proposed growth, but no significant Site location is such that an odour impact assessment Additional flow ≥5% of Q30. Moderate risk that serve proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the serve proposed growth, but no significant constraints to the technology limits. Ensure proposed growth doesn't cause that the planned increase in demand can be met constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have constraints to the provision of this infrastructure have is recommended increased discharges will increase fluvial flood risk. provision of this infrastructure have been identified . provision of this infrastructure have been identified . significant deterioration. been identified . been identified . Adopted WRMP does not take into consideration the Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to Proposed development can be accommodated with a tighter Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades will be required to serve Additional flow ≥5% of Q100. High risk that increased planned increase in demand. Additional water required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints required to serve proposed growth. Major constraints serve proposed growth. Major constraints have been Site is in an area with confirmed WwTW odour issues. permit and upgrade to treatment. This is achievable with proposed growth. Major constraints have been identified. discharges will increase fluvial flood risk. resources may be required. have been identified. have been identified. identified. current technology.
Environmental capacity could be a constraint to growth
Site information Water Supply Wastewater Flood risk Water Quality Potential Potential Company Foul Sewerage Surface Water Site boundary Effluent housing Water Resource Water Water Supply WwTW Flow Location of site Odour Screening Effluent discharge flood risk Site Code Constituent sites Site Area (Ha) employment Water Company Water Resources Comments Water Supply Networks Comments Treating WwTW WwTW Flow Capacity Comments Sewerage Undertaker Sewerage catchment Network Foul Sewerage Network Capacity Comments Network Surface Water Network Capacity Comments distance from Odour screening comments discharge flood Water Quality RAG Water Quality Comments number Zone Resources RAG Networks RAG Capacity RAG relative to WwTW RAG Comments (m2) Wastewater Capacity RAG capacity WwTW (m) risk RAG (units) TWUL WCS comment: This RAG score just reflects Infrastructure and/or treatment the network capacity. The site benefits by being Surface water should be dealt with on site The impact of increased effluent work upgrades are required to serve close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be BIN7, BIN8, BIN9, and SUDS should be incorperated. There are Scores green because all sites within flows is not predicted to have a See main report for results specific to CLUSTER1 63.19 874 465 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber proposed growth, but no significant Bracknell Amber storage or upgrades required on site and around Amber 1625 N Green Green Amber BIN10, BIN11 no surface water sewers near the the cluster are identified as green. significant impact upon flood risk in Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) constraints to the provision of this to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot development. the receiving watercourse. infrastructure have been identified . say categorically say what upgrades if any may be reuired to the local network. TWUL WCS comment: This RAG score just reflects Surface water should be dealt with on site The impact of increased effluent Easthampstead Park STW will the network capacity. The site is close to See main report for results specific to and SUDS should be incorperated. The Scores green because all sites within flows is not predicted to have a CLUSTER2 BRA1, BRA2 61.17 786 SEW RZ5 Green Green TWUL Easthampstead Park Amber require significant upgrades in order TWUL Easthampstead Park Amber Easthampstead STW so any network upgrades Amber 414 S Green Green Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm heirarchy of surface water diposal should be the cluster are identified as green. significant impact upon flood risk in to accommodate this development required may not be as extensive as if the site Brook) followed. the receiving watercourse. was some way from the STW. TWUL WCS comment: This site is adjacent to Easthampstead Park STW. If flows were to go there it is unlikley network upgrades would be required. This comment is only relavnt to the network and does not take into account STW capacity. Should the STW not have the required capacity upgrades may be required to the network to take flows elsewhere. TWUL response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the Surface water should be dealt with on site The impact of increased effluent Easthampstead Park STW will Scores amber because at least one See main report for results specific to demand anticipated from this development. and SUDS should be incorperated. There are flows is not predicted to have a CLUSTER3 BRA3, BRA4 56.90 570 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Easthampstead Park Amber require significant upgrades in order TWUL Easthampstead Park Amber Amber 12 WSW Amber site within the cluster is identified Green Amber Easthampstead Park WwTW (Emm Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be no surface water sewers near the significant impact upon flood risk in to accommodate this development as amber. Brook) required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought development. the receiving watercourse. forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered. JBA comment: This cluster is formed from BRA3 and BRA4. The worst case RAG score by TWUL for these sites was applied here. TWUL WCS comment: This RAG score just reflects the network capacity. The site benefits by being Surface water should be dealt with on site The impact of increased effluent WAR11, WAR12, Bracknell STW will require upgrades close to Bracknell STW's but there may still be and SUDS should be incorperated. There are Scores green because all sites within flows is not predicted to have a See main report for results specific to CLUSTER4 WAR,13, WAR14, 18.75 328 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber in order to accommodate this TWUL Bracknell Amber storage or upgrades required on site and around Amber 2679 WNW Green Green Amber no surface water sewers near the the cluster are identified as green. significant impact upon flood risk in Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) WAR15, WAR16 development to get the flow to the STW. At this time cannot development. the receiving watercourse. say categorically say what upgrades if any may be reuired to the local network. TWUL WCS comment: Due to the size of the development some network enhancements very likely. TWUL response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Surface water should be dealt with on site The impact of increased effluent Bracknell STW will require upgrades Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be and SUDS should be incorperated. There are Scores green because all sites within flows is not predicted to have a See main report for results specific to CLUSTER5 WINK13, WINK14 59.88 500 AfW WRZ6 Green Amber TWUL Bracknell Amber in order to accommodate this TWUL Bracknell Red Red 2479 SSW Green Green Amber required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought no surface water sewers near the the cluster are identified as green. significant impact upon flood risk in Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) development forward ahead of the development. Where there development. the receiving watercourse. is a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered
TWUL response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, 26/03/2018: JBA comment: As per Cluster 4: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able Overall, CLUSTER7 is likely to have a to support the demand anticipated from this The impact of increased effluent WAR13, WAR14, lower housing development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is Scores green because all sites within flows is not predicted to have a See main report for results specific to CLUSTER7 WAR15, WA16, 15.72 235 SEW RZ4 Green Green TWUL Bracknell Amber yield than CLUSTER4. RAG TWUL Bracknell Amber likely to be required to ensure sufficient capacity Amber As per cluster 4 2787 WNW Green Green Amber the cluster are identified as green. significant impact upon flood risk in Bracknell WwTW (The Cut) WAR22 assessment remains is brought forward ahead of the development. the receiving watercourse. as for CLUSTER4. Where there is a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered
B Appendix - Water Quality Assessment
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx III
This page is intentionally left blank
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx IV
B Water Quality Assessment
B.1 Introduction The increased discharge of effluent due to a growth in population served by a Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs) may impact on the quality of the receiving waterbody. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) does not allow a watercourse to deteriorate from its current class (either overall waterbody class or element class). It is Environment Agency (EA) policy to model the impact of increasing effluent volumes on the receiving watercourse. Where the scale of development is such that deterioration is predicted, a new Environmental Permit (EP) may be required for the WwTW to improve the quality of the final effluent, so that the extra pollution load will not result in a deterioration in the water quality of the watercourse. This is known as a "no deterioration" or "load standstill." It is the objective of the WFD that all waterbodies should either meet Good Ecological Status (GES) or if they have been highly modified to meet Good Ecological Potential (GEP). Therefore, it is necessary to assess whether proposed growth will prevent a watercourse from meeting GES or GEP. The WCS should, where possible, guide development to locations where it will not lead to environmental deterioration or require investment with a low cost-benefit being required to prevent deterioration.
B.2 Future growth in effluent discharges
B.2.1 Growth within Bracknell Forest Future increases in volume of effluent discharged were estimated based on the number of future housing units and/or employment space to be constructed (see Table 1) As part of the Phase II Outline WCS for Bracknell Forest Borough Council, water quality modelling has been used to assess the impacts of growth leading to increased volumes of treated effluent discharging to receiving waters. Four wastewater treatment works (WwTW) have been identified as sites of potential future capacity issues as a result of increased flows due to allocated housing development. Ascot, Bracknell, Easthampstead Park, and Sandhurst WwTW’s will be assessed with the following approach: • Sandhurst WwTW discharges into the Blackwater (Hawley to Whitewater confluence at Bramshill). This section of the Blackwater has already been modelled within the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS1. The SIMCAT model will be assessed and updated with additional growth flows from Bracknell Forest and reassessed to analyse the catchment scale impacts of water quality. • Bracknell WwTW discharges into the Cut (Binfield to River Thames) and Ascot WwTW discharges to the Bull Brook, a tributary of the Cut. The Cut was not modelled within the Thames RBD2 model as an individual watercourse, therefore to assess the impacts of growth on water quality a new SIMCAT model was required. • Easthampstead Park WwTW discharges to the Emm Brook, a tributary of the Loddon. To assess the impacts of growth on water quality in this watercourse, the Thames SIMCAT model will be updated based on proposed growth in Bracknell.
B.2.2 Growth within neighbouring authorities As well as assessing the impact of growth from WwTWs within Bracknell Forest, the WCS has considered the cumulative impact of growth in neighbouring authorities (see section 5.2.3 of the main report). For the water quality assessment, significant contributors are:
1 AECOM. May 2017. Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS – Final Report. Available at: https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Hart_Rushmoor_Surr eyHeath_WCS.pdf 2 Thames River Basin District
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 1
• Planned growth within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead which will be treated at the Ascot WwTW, including planned developments in Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale totalling 691 new dwellings (covering the plan period 2015 to 2030). • Growth within the Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) is expected to be up to 2,220 additional dwellings that will be treated at Easthampstead WwTW. WBC is currently preparing a Local Plan Update which will cover the planning period 2006 to 2026. • Approximately 50% of the Sandhurst WwTW catchment serves the settlements of Yateley and Blackwater, within Hart District. The treatment works is expected to receive significant growth covering the planning period 2011 – 2032 of the Hart District Local Plan. The additional demand on these treatment works over the plan period is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Calculation of growth by WwTW, commitment, potential future growth and additional demand in all sites scenario
WwTW Proposed growth over plan period (dwellings) Additional Demand (Ml/d)
Within Study Within Neighbouring Total Area LPAs Ascot 908 691 1599 0.404
Bracknell 12294 0 12294 9.395
Easthampstead 1460 2220 3680 1.101
Sandhurst 2164 146 2042 1.158
Note the 'All sites' scenario was tested rather than 'Preferred Sites' for this study as this will be a conservative assessment and assess the worst-case scenario. See sections 2 and 5 of the main report for details of the growth scenarios and how these relate to individual WwTWs.
B.2.3 Growth within the wider Blackwater catchment In order for the study to assess the impact of growth at Sandhurst treatment works, it is important to consider cumulative impact of growth upstream and downstream. Growth figures used within the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS3, and the Guildford Water Quality Assessment4 have been used for this assessment. Table 2: Calculation of growth by WwTW and additional demand upstream and downstream of Sandhurst WwTW
WwTW Local Authority Number of Additional Demand Dwellings (Ml/d) Aldershot Rushmoor 950 0.136 Ash Vale Guildford 1995 0.621 Camberley Hart Rushmoor & 8980 3.444 Surrey Heath Camp Farm Rushmoor 4290 1.463 Eversley Hart 120 0.045 Lower Common Hart 0 0
3 AECOM. May 2017. Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS – Final Report. Available at: https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Hart_Rushmoor_SurreyHeath_WCS.pdf
4 AECOM. October 2017.Guildford Water Quality Assessment. Stage 2 - Final Report. Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/newlocalplan/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=25940&p=0
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 2
B.3 Assessing deterioration The study was required to assess changes to effluent flows as a result of the proposed development from each settlement to assess the impact of the increase contaminant load on the receiving watercourses. Increase in a pollutant load being discharged from a WwTW could cause a deterioration and the EA set the following criteria to define significant deterioration, at which point a review of the Environmental Permit may be triggered: • A class deterioration. For example, if an increased load of ammonia from a WwTW led to a water body currently defined as "Fair" ecological status dropping down to "Poor" status. • A deterioration of more than 10%. For example, if the present-day 90 percentile BOD downstream of a WwTW is 2.0mg/l, but as a result of an increased WwTW discharge this rose to 2.3mg/l, this would be a deterioration of 15%. • Any deterioration of a water body classed as "Bad". Where the water body is currently of "Bad" ecological status (the lowest WFD status), then no further deterioration is permitted. In practice, deterioration should be limited in such cases to less than 3%.
Where a WwTW is predicted to lead to a deterioration, it is necessary to determine a possible future permit value which would prevent this from occurring.
B.4 Assessing potential to meet Good Ecological Status Where a watercourse is not currently meeting a Good class for any single determinand, it cannot be deemed to meet GES or GEP. For a WCS, it is essential to determine whether Good class could be reached in the present day. If this is possible, within the limitations of existing treatment technologies, a further test is made to determine whether the watercourse could be prevented from achieving a Good class solely as a result of growth in the catchment. If the latter is the case, environmental capacity within the watercourse may be a constraint to growth, and alternative solutions, such as relocating growth, relocating points of discharge or addressing sources of diffuse pollution may be necessary. This assessment process has recently been set out in a guidance document by the Environment Agency's West Thames Area5. This guidance is summarised in the flow chart below: F i g Could the development Could the development Could the development b. Is GES technically ucause >10% deterioration cause deterioration in alone prevent the possible after in water quality? WFD class? receiving water from development and r reaching Good potential STW No Yes No Yes Ecological Status or Yes upgrades? No e Potential? Specifically: a. is GES possible now with current technology? 1 : No Yes No Could WFD class deterioration be prevented Yes Is the water bodyW already Could >10% deterioration meeting Good Ecological be prevented using current Status? a technology? Yes No
Yes t No eSufficient Environmental Good Ecological Status Proposed development Environmental capacity can be accommodated Capacity. Proposed cannot be achieved due with a tighter permit and could be a constraint to rdevelopment has no to current technology upgrade to treatment. growth significant impact on the limits. Ensure proposed This is achievable with current technology. water body's potential for growth doesn't cause qreaching GES. significant deterioration. u a lity assessment flow chart
5 Environment Agency West Thames Area (2016) Water Cycle Study Guidance and Requirements - West Thames Area.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 3
B.5 Best Available Technology (BAT) Where deterioration is predicted, or the watercourse is not meeting Good class for one or more determinands, modelling can be used to test whether application of Best Available Technology (BAT) treatment processes could prevent deterioration and enable the receiving watercourse to meet the physico-chemical requirements to achieve Good Ecological Status or Potential. The EA advised that the following permit values are achievable using Best Available Technology, and that these values should be used for modelling all WwTW potential capacity irrespective of the existing treatment technology and size of the works: • Ammonia (95%-ile) = 1mg/l • BOD (95%-ile) = 5mg/l • Phosphorous (mean) - 0.5mg/l Note that phosphorus removal has been the subject of long-term national trials investigating novel techniques and optimisation of existing methods. This major study, which involved all UK water companies, completed in late 2017, and concluded that a new Technologically Achievable Limit or TAL for phosphorous should be set at 0.25mg/l as an annual average6. This report was not available to JBA Consulting at the time the water quality assessment was undertaken. It will inform the water companies business plans for delivering water quality improvements during AMP7 (2020 to 2025) and beyond. This phase 2 WCS is, however, based on the previous assumption of BAT for phosphorus of 0.5mg/l. This phase 2 WCS did not take into consideration if it is feasible to upgrade each existing WwTW to such technology due to constraints of costs, timing, space, carbon costs, etc.
B.6 Modelling method selection
B.6.4 River Cut and Bull Brook The River Cut receives effluent from Ascot and Bracknell WwTWs along the reach until its confluence with the River Thames. For the purpose of this study, the Cut was modelled from headwaters at North Ascot, the Bull Brook and west Bracknell to the Buck Bridge at Binfield. The Bull Brook is a tributary of the Cut which begins just upstream of Ascot WwTW and flows to the confluence with the Cut at Warfield. At the recommendation of the Environment Agency, SIMCAT was identified as the preferred modelling platform, in order to assess the cumulative impacts of these discharges. As the Cut and Bull Brook have not been modelled within the existing Thames RBD model, a new model was created to assess growth in WwTW discharges in these locations.
6 Environment Agency (2017) PR19: New approaches for permitting phosphorus. Unpublished note.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 4
Figure 2: River Cut and Bull Brook Model Extent
B.6.5 Emm Brook The Emm Brook is a tributary of the River Loddon with much of the watercourse being located in the neighbouring authority of Wokingham. Easthampstead WwTW discharges directly into the watercourse, both being represented within the EA's SIMCAT model of the Thames basin. Note that, whilst the full extents of the Emm Brook to its confluence with the Loddon have been assessed, the impacts of growth within Ash Ridge WwTW have not been assessed, as this solely serves settlements within Wokingham. It is assumed that the impacts of growth at Ash Ridge will be assessed separately by Wokingham Borough Council, Thames Water or the Environment Agency.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 5
Figure 3: Emm Brook Model Extent
B.6.6 Blackwater The Blackwater and Cove Brook (tributary of the Blackwater) form part of the River Loddon catchment where it confluences with the Loddon, north of Swallowfield, Wokingham. The watercourse has been represented within the EA's Thames RBD model with Sandhurst WwTW also being modelled. Modelling prepared by AECOM as part of the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS involved trimming down the EA's SIMCAT model to solely represent the Blackwater (Aldershot to Cove Brook confluence and Hawley to Whitewater confluence) and the Cove Brook. The AECOM model was seen as suitable to use for the purposes of the phase 2 WCS, as river flow and quality data were updated to 2013-2015 observed data. For the purpose of this WCS, only Sandhurst WwTW was updated with future flows, with the upstream water quality point TH- PLDR0135 and the downstream water quality point TH-PLDR0012 used for observation. Data from the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS, and the Guildford Water Quality Assessment was kept for all other treatment works along the reach.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 6
Figure 4: Blackwater Model Extent
B.7 S I M C A T
M e t h o d o l o g y
B.7.7 Introduction SIMCAT is regarded by the Environment Agency's Thames Area as the best current approach to model potential deterioration of waterbodies and to support decision making to guide development to locations where environmental deterioration will be reduced. SIMCAT is a 1D stochastic, steady state, deterministic model which represents inputs from point-score effluent discharges and the behaviour of solutes in the river (Cox, 2003)7. SIMCAT can simulate inputs of discharge and water quality data and statistically distribute them from multiple effluent sources along the river reach. It uses the Monte Carlo method for distribution that randomly models up to 2,500 boundary conditions. The simulation calculates the resultant water quality as the calculations cascade further downstream. Once the distribution results have been produced, an assessment can be undertaken on the predicted mean and ninety percentile concentrations or loads. Existing SIMCAT models developed by the Environment Agency for the Thames catchment were supplied, one modelling Ammonia and BOD, the other modelling Phosphorous. The models were understood to have been largely based on observed flow and quality data for the period 2005 to 2008. It was therefore necessary to update the models using river quality, flow and effluent monitoring observations during the period of 2013 to 2015. As AECOM's Blackwater model was updated to this period, observed data at Easthampstead (Emm Brook), Bracknell (Bull Brook) and Ascot (Cut) were also updated to the same time period in order to maintain consistency.
7 Cox. B. A. (2003) A Review of Currently Available in-Stream Water-quality models their applicability for simulating dissolved oxygen in lowland rivers. The Science of the Total Environment. 314 - 316, 355 - 377. Elsevier.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 7
B.7.8 Model History The Cut and Bull Brook As described in section A.6.4, the Thames RBD SIMCAT model had not structured the watercourse as a standalone feature but had only referenced the reaches (e.g. Reach 730 - Ascot to Bull Brook confluence). A new SIMCAT model was created to properly structure the Cut and Bull Brook. The model build is shown below in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Model Build for the Cut and Bull Brook
The Blackwater A model built for the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS was obtained in order to assess the cumulative impacts of growth upon Sandhurst WwTW. Below in Figure 6, describes the model history and how it will be applied to this study. Figure 6: Model history of the Blackwater model
T h e
E m m Brook The Thames RBD model was used to model the impact of future growth on Easthampstead WwTW and the Emm Brook. Only 2013 - 2015 effluent quality and flow data were updated and the downstream water quality sampling point. Figure 7 shows the model history below.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 8
Figure 7: Model history for the Emm Brook
B.7.9 Preparation of updated baseline model
The SIMCAT models are calibrated for Ammonia (NH4), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Phosphorous (P). The models were updated as follows: River flow Updated flow statistics were obtained from the National River Flows Archive (NRFA) for the Cut at Binfield (station 39052), covering the period 1957 - 2016. The period 2013 - 2015 was used for the model. There were no gauging stations for the Emm Brook or Bull Brook. The Blackwater model had been previously updated with flow data for the period 2013 - 2015 at Farnborough (station 39123), covering the period 1996 - 2016. Baseline flow for reach headwaters and diffuse were copied from the Thames RBD model to the Cut and Bull Brook model. River quality Observed Ammonia, BOD and Phosphorous data were obtained from the Environment Agency's Water Quality Archive for the period 2013 - 2015. Baseline quality for reach headwaters and diffuse was copied from the Thames RBD model to the Cut and Bull Brook model. Baseline phosphorous data for reach headwaters and diffuse were increased from 0.00 to 0.025 as zero levels for phosphorous are unrealistic. WwTW flow Observed WwTW daily discharge volumes were provided by the Environment Agency. Where there were limited input statistics or none, the EA guidance required that: • Flow mean: 1.25*DWF • Flow Standard Deviation: 1/3*mean • Flow Shift parameter: 0.75*mean WwTW effluent quality Observed Ammonia, BOD and Phosphate data were obtained from the Environment Agency's Water Quality Archive for the period 2013 - 2015. Where there were limited input statistics or none, the EA guidance required that permit values were applied. Modelling assumptions and decisions The following modelling decisions and assumptions were taken in preparing the model update: • Only determinands that were present in the EA baseline model were updated. • No new river monitoring points that were not present in the EA baseline model were updated.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 9
• Monitoring points immediately upstream or downstream of treatment works where the flows have been updated were updated. • Only samples taken for routine monitoring purposes were used. Samples taken for instrument trials, planned investigations or reactive monitoring were filtered out. • Samples were analysed for evidence of outliers and step-changes. • Where samples were marked in the Water Quality Archive as qualified (e.g. an ammonia value of <0.13mg/l), these samples were treated as being 50% of their face value. • The standard deviation for Ammonia at Ascot was changed from 0.00 to 0.022 (third of the mean, 0.065) as zero deviation within 35 samples is statistically improbable. • In total, effluent data for Ammonia, BOD and Flow at all four WwTWs were available to use to update. • Phosphorous concentrations were updated for Ascot, Bracknell and Sandhurst STW's. There was no available data for Phosphorous at Easthampstead STW. Therefore, baseline data was kept. Ash Ridge baseline data within the Thames RBD model has been kept. Modelling the impact of growth upon Ash Ridge WwTW is outside the scope for this study and the responsibility of Wokingham Borough Council.
B.7.10 Model calibration check River Flow The SIMCAT Model was calibrated against observed data provided by the Environment Agency from the period January 2013 to December 2015. As stated previously, updated flow statistics were obtained for the Cut at Binfield (station 39052) and for the Blackwater at Farnborough (station 39123), within the Blackwater model. Therefore, as these are the only NRFA gauges within the study area, other modelled reaches such as the Bull Brook and Emm Brook can be assumed to be uncalibrated with regards to flow. The gauging station at Binfield indicates good calibration between observed and calibrated flow. To improve calibration, the diffuse inputs and headwaters were increased by a scaling factor of 5 until there was a better match with the observed data. Note that npd8 datasets created in SAGIS were not edited as SAGIS cannot be currently licensed for work for clients who do not have a Low Flows Enterprise license. Figure 8: Flow (Ml/day) manual calibration results for the Cut.
8 Non-parametric distribution - annual and monthly flow distributions.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 10
Figure 9: Flow (Ml/day) manual calibration results for the Blackwater
Figure 10: Flow (Ml/day) manual calibration results for the Blackwater (EA's Thames RBD Model)
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 11
Ammonia and Biochemical Oxygen Demand The model calibration was checked for Ammonia, applying a tolerance of ± 1 standard deviation criteria for both mean and 90 percentiles of the observed values (shown on the graphs as confidence intervals). BOD was not checked as there were no observed values available for in- river water quality sampling points. Where there is no observed data for water quality sampling points, existing baseline data has been kept. There was no water quality sampling point directly downstream of Easthampstead WwTW built within the Thames RBD model. The nearest water quality sampling point is 8km downstream. Within SIMCAT, mode '0' was used to run the model where there is no auto-calibration between points or 'gap-filling'. This means that SIMCAT is not permitted to auto-calibrate itself by adding or removing loads to ensure a fit at the calibration (WQ) sites. Overall, calibration was reasonably good across the model, considering there being numerous diffuse inputs and water quality monitoring points. Both the Cut SIMCAT model and updated Thames RBD model (for Easthampstead WwTW) were calibrated against observed ammonia data for the period, January 2013 to December 2015. To achieve calibration between the updated model and the baseline, the aim was to meet the ± 1 standard deviation criteria for both mean and 90 percentiles of the observed values. The results of the calibration checks are presented below for the Cut, Emm Brook, Bull Brook and the Blackwater (at Sandhurst WwTW).
Figure 11: The Cut manual calibration results of river quality and flow
Manual calibration for the model indicates relatively good calibration between the observed and calibrated values. The model achieves ± 1 standard deviation criteria for both mean and 90 percentiles of the observed values for Ammonia between WQ PTHR0460 and WQ PTHR0125. This is the critical reach, as it contains the inflow from Bracknell WwTW, as well as inflow from the Bull Brook, which carries effluent from Ascot WwTW.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 12
Figure 12: Bull Brook manual calibration results of river quality and flow.
Results for the Bull Brook indicate manual calibration is a close match between the observed and calibrated values. Calibrated results are predicted lower than observed data at WQ PTHR0012, this is due to baseline data for diffuse headwaters (copied from the Thames RBD model) being lower than 2013-2015 observed data. WQ PTHR0012 is the only water quality point on the Bull Brook. Figure 13: Emm Brook manual calibration results of river quality and flow
Manual calibration for the model indicates relatively good calibration between the observed and calibrated values. The model achieves ± 1 standard deviation criteria for both mean and 90 percentiles of the observed values at PLDR0015, the only quality sampling point on this watercourse.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 13
Figure 14: Blackwater and Cove Brook manual calibration results of river quality and flow (at Sandhurst WwTW)
The majority of the model is within confidence limits for Ammonia, although the model does under- predict concentrations at PLDR0135 upstream of Sandhurst, although there may be some discrepancy here between the very low concentrations of Ammonia being achieved at Camberley STW (well below BAT) and the observed values at PLDR0135. The 2005-2008 baseline Thames RBD model shows a better fit upstream of Sandhurst, but under-predicted against the observed values for that period at the downstream end of the Blackwater, as shown in Figure 15. Figure 15: Blackwater manual calibration results of river quality and flow (at Sandhurst WwTW). EA's Thames RBD model
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 14
Phosphorous Phosphorous data was obtained from the West Thames Archive data set for the year 2013 -2015 which was provided by the Environment Agency. Where possible, baseline phosphorous levels were entered into models for the Cut and Bull Brook. Existing phosphorous data was kept for Easthampstead as there was no observed data during the given period. Where data was unavailable for the remaining treatment works and water quality points the existing data from the Thames RBD model was kept. The Blackwater model had been (by AECOM) calibrated for phosphate against observed data for the period from January 2013 - December 2015. To achieve calibration between the observed data and the updated model, the aim was to meet the ± 1 standard deviation criteria for both mean and 90 percentiles of the observed values.
Figure 16: Manual Calibration results of phosphate at Bracknell treatment works and the Cut
The model is conservative as it over-predicts mean phosphorous concentrations through the key central part of the Cut from WQ PTHR0460 to PTHR0125.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 15
Figure 17: Manual calibration results of phosphate at Ascot treatment works and the Bull Brook
The model is conservative as it over-predicts mean phosphorous concentrations at the only sampling point, WQ PTHR0012. The Bull Brook is a tributary of the Cut, which also slightly over- predicts mean concentrations downstream of the confluence (upstream of Bracknell treatment works). Figure 18: Manual calibration results of phosphate at Easthampstead treatment works and the Emm Brook
There was no phosphate data for the period between January 2013 to December 2015 is at Easthampstead treatment works, therefore the baseline within the original model data was
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 16
retained, with only flow being updated. Water quality point PLDR0015 was updated. As the nearest water quality point is 10km downstream it is hard to distinguish whether the reach is calibrated directly downstream of the treatment works. For the purpose of the phase 2 WCS, Ash Ridge WwTW was not updated within the model as it receives no flow from Bracknell Forest. It has been assumed that it will be the responsibility of Wokingham Borough Council to assess the impact of growth on water quality downstream of Ash Ridge. Note, water quality point PLDR0015 will measure effluent from both Easthampstead and Ash Ridge WwTW. Figure 19: Manual calibration results of phosphate at Sandhurst treatment works and then Blackwater
Upstream of Sandhurst treatment works (PLDE0086) there is a fairly good match between observed and calibrated values, however downstream of the treatment works the model over predicts phosphate levels. Observed mean concentrations decay at a greater rate than predicted by the model.
B.7.11 Preparation of the future growth (2036) model A future growth model was prepared, to represent the potential future water quality impacts following planned growth to 2036. Only WwTW flows were modified. The 2036 future mean effluent flows were calculated as: • Future mean flow = present day (2013-15) mean flow + estimated additional effluent (see headroom assessment in main report). The future standard deviation of flow was calculated using the same coefficient of variance as between the present-day mean and standard deviation: • Future standard deviation of flow = (present-day SD / present-day mean) * future mean
B.7.12 Test for deterioration due to growth The present-day baseline and future growth (2036) models were both run using model mode zero where there is no gap filling or auto-calibration between diffuse inputs. Results were compared to identify where deterioration is predicted to occur (see section A.3 for definitions of deterioration). River quality was predicted to deteriorate as a result of growth at all treatment works either deteriorating by ≥10%, and/or predicting a class deterioration. There was no instance where a site was already deemed 'Bad' and deteriorated by more than three percent. Full results are shown in Annex A. Deterioration of 10% or greater was predicted at Bracknell, Easthampstead and Sandhurst with the subsequent downstream water quality sampling points indicating similar percentages of deterioration.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 17
Table 3: Sites with deterioration greater than 10% due to growth. Percentage of deterioration due to growth Feature Reach Ammonia BOD Phosphate (90%-ile) (90%-ile) (mean)
Bracknell WwTW Cut 13 10 10 WQ PTHR0125 Cut, 3.4km d/s of 12 11 11 Bracknell WwTW WQ PTHR0124 Cut, 13.1km d/s of 8 5 12 Bracknell WwTW Easthampstead Emm Brook 53 10 1 WwTW WQ PLDR0015 9.6km d/s of 0 0 0 Easthampstead WwTW Sandhurst WwTW Blackwater 10 3 9 WQ PLDR0135 Blackwater, 2.3km 14 4 12 u/s of Sandhurst WwTW WQ PLDR0012 Blackwater, 2.5km 11 3 13 d/s of Sandhurst WwTW
At Bracknell WwTW all determinands experienced deterioration by or greater than 10%, with the downstream water quality point WQ PTHR0125 experiencing a similar trend. There was also class deterioration directly downstream of the site with BOD being predicted to deteriorate from Poor to Bad class. The downstream sampling point WQ PTHR0124 experienced greater than 10% deterioration in Phosphate, with BOD and Ammonia maintaining Good class. At Easthampstead WwTW, deterioration was predicted for Ammonia and BOD, and BOD class also fell from High to Good. At Sandhurst WwTW, directly downstream of the site there was deterioration greater than 10% for Ammonia as well as both the upstream (as a result of growth in other LPAs upstream) and downstream water quality points. There was also Phosphate deterioration predicted greater than 10% at both water quality points with the downstream sampling point WQ PLDR0012 deteriorating in Ammonia class, from High to Good. There were three instances where a determinand would fall into the 'Bad' class based on SIMCAT results. Directly downstream of Ascot and Easthampstead for Phosphorous, mean levels within the baseline were deemed bad but did not deteriorate by more than 3%, and directly downstream of Bracknell WwTW, BOD class fell from Moderate to Bad. Note that none of the WFD waterbodies investigated are currently classed as Bad for BOD, NH4 or P.
B.7.13 Modelled classification vs WFD 2016 Cycle 2 classification The modelled assessment compared the modelled baseline with the modelled future flows scenario in order to test for deterioration. EA guidance states that class deterioration should test deterioration against the published WFD class for each determinand, currently the 2016 Cycle 2 class, not against a modelled class. Where the modelled baseline class is the same or better than the published class, the assessment of class deterioration using the modelled baseline is considered to be sound. Where the modelled baseline class is lower than the current WFD class, both at the point of mixing and at the downstream sampling point, using the modelled baseline to assess deterioration could result in a no deterioration being incorrectly reported. Table 5 compares the reported and modelled classifications. This has identified that the assessment of deterioration for the Emm Brook, Blackwater and Bull Brook are all appropriate, because the modelled class is either the same as or higher than the reported class. However, for The Cut (Binfield to the River Thames
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 18
confluence), the model predicts “Good” class for BOD at sampling point PTHR0124, The Cut immediately upstream of the confluence with the Thames and the only sampling point downstream of Bracknell WwTW where BOD is measured. This modelled class accords with the sampled data for 2013-15, however the WFD 2016 Cycle 2 class is set at “High” for BOD. Strictly, therefore, the modelling has not assessed deterioration against current class for BOD in The Cut. However, the results for the test of whether good class would be achievable (see section B.7.15 below) do indicate that improvements in BOD at and downstream of Bracknell WwTW would be achievable by application of Best Available Technology, both in the base case and in the future (2036) scenario. Table 4: Comparison of WFD 2016 Cycle 2 class with modelled class
Reach WwTW Determinand WFD Model Model Comments on class 2016 class (d/s class (d/s deterioration Cycle 2 of WwTW) sample assessment using class point) modelled baseline
Emm Brook Easthampstead NH4 Good Good High OK, conservative Park BOD None High High OK, no published class P Poor Poor Poor OK
Blackwater (Hawley Sandhurst NH4 Good Good High OK, conservative to Whitewater BOD Good High High OK, conservative confluence at Bramshill) P Poor Poor Poor OK
Bull Brook Ascot NH4 Good High High OK, conservative BOD None Good High OK, no published class P Poor Bad Poor OK at d/s sample point
Cut (Binfield to R Bracknell NH4 Good Good High OK, conservative Thames confluence) BOD High Poor Good Modelled as Good at PTHR0124 just u/s of confluence with Thames. P Poor Poor Poor OK
B.7.14 Test whether deterioration can be prevented Where deterioration was predicted, the model was used to test whether that deterioration could be prevented by tightening the quality permit. The simplest way to test this was to adjust the model such that the WwTW causing the predicted deterioration was assumed to meet Best Available Technology limits for the determinand in question: Table 5: Modelled values of mean and standard deviation to achieve BAT Determinand 90 %ile Coefficient of Mean Standard variation Deviation BOD 5.0 0.6 2.86 1.72 Ammonia 1.0 0.6 0.57 0.34 Phosphorous N/A 0.6 0.5 0.3
Note that this test does not determine what a future permit condition should be, nor whether achieving these standards would require a change of process technology, but simply checks whether deterioration could be prevented using BAT. The actual setting of new permit limits would be conducted by Environment Agency water quality planners working with Thames Water. Results indicate that, at all works where a downstream deterioration is predicted, this could be prevented by a tightening of the permit, and that in all cases this would be achievable within the limits of current technology. Full results are shown in Annex B.
B.7.15 Test whether Good class is currently achievable Where no deterioration is predicted, or deterioration can be prevented, but the watercourse is not currently Good or High for any determinand, modelling them moved on to test whether Good class is currently achievable. This was carried out using SIMCAT run type 9, which tests whether a
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 19
standard is achievable within the limits of BAT, assuming that the water quality upstream of each WwTW discharge is meeting Good class. Before running SIMCAT in run type 9, the current-day baseline model was adjusted to set river quality targets and to define what SIMCAT calls 'best available discharge quality', termed BAT in this report. River quality targets were set at the mid-point of the Good class, assuming lowland rivers (<80m elevation), high alkalinity and cyprinid fishery: Table 6: River quality targets set in SIMCAT Determinand Statistic High Good Mid-point of Good BOD 90 %ile 4.0 5.0 4.5 Ammonia 90 %ile 0.3 0.6 0.45 Phosphorous Annual 0.050 0.120 0.085 mean The best available discharge quality was set in SIMCAT. This must be expressed as an annual mean. Annex B shows a comparison between the present-day base case and the present-day with Good upstream water quality and treatment quality up to the limits of BAT. Run type nine shows improvement over the baseline in all cases and indicates meeting Good class is achievable for Ammonia and BOD concentrations. Downstream of Easthampstead WwTW at water quality sampling point PLDR0015, SIMCAT results suggest phosphate class can only meet moderate. Though an improvement of over 65% in mean which elevates the class from poor to moderate, it is still shy of meeting good class. Note this water quality sampling point is impacted by Ash Ridge WwTW as it is 9.6km downstream of Easthampstead WwTW where Phosphorous levels directly downstream of the treatment works can achieve good. At Sandhurst treatment works, directly downstream of the treatment works Phosphorous levels remained poor. This was also evident upstream and downstream of the treatment works at both water quality sampling points. Note the Blackwater (Hawley to Whitewater confluence at Bramshill) is currently classed as Poor for Phosphate9. These results suggest Good class would be achievable downstream of all WwTWs except at Sandhurst (for Phosphate), given application of BAT and assuming reductions in diffuse pollutants such that the upstream water quality is Good. The water industry has been undertaking several years of trials of new techniques for Phosphorous removal, and it is anticipated that BAT will be able to meet tighter permit conditions in the future. Investment to improve water quality is, however, subject to cost-benefit appraisal, and it remains to be seen whether the benefits of improved treatment for P will be greater than the capital and operational costs of providing additional treatment.
B.7.16 Test whether planned growth would prevent Good class from being achieved in the future Where the application of BAT and reductions in diffuse sources in the present day could improve water quality to meet Good class, it is important to understand whether this could be compromised as a result of future growth within the catchment. This was modelled by applying the same method described above in section B.7.15 to the future growth 2036 model. The same river quality targets and best available discharge quality values were set, and SIMCAT run type nine was used. Results are compared with present-day run type nine results in Annex B. These indicate that: • At Bracknell WwTW planned growth would not prevent Good class being achieved for all determinands with the application of BAT. • At Sandhurst WwTW Good Class was not achievable for Phosphate but future class did not deteriorate further from the present day. • At Easthampstead WwTW, BOD class fell from High to Good with both Ammonia and Phosphate remaining as Good. Downstream of Easthampstead at WQ PLDR0015,
9 Environment Agency (2016) WFD Water Body Classification, 2016 Cycle 2. Accessed online at http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/WaterBody/GB106039017290
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 20
Phosphate class remained as poor, however this is due to the influence of Ash Ridge WwTW where effluent discharge dominates the reach. This study has not considered the impacts of future growth and treatment improvements at Ash Ridge. • Ascot WwTW and the downstream water quality sampling point (TH-PTHR0012) showed class deterioration from high to moderate for Ammonia where BAT was applied in the present day. This result was unexpected, but on reviewing the models, it was identified that the present-day observed effluent quality at Ascot is already exceeding BAT. As performance for Ammonia is High for both the present day and future runs, this result can be treated as a modelling anomaly and not a cause for concern.
B.8 Climate change assessment
B.8.17 Background The Thames River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) recognises that the climate is changing as a result of human activity, and that rising global temperatures are expected to lead to increased winter rainfall and more rain falling in intense storms. It acknowledges that the impacts on river flow, water quality and ecosystems are less clear, but that studies are underway to investigate these impacts. Potential risks which could adversely impact water quality include: • lower summer river flows leading to reduced dilution of wastewater effluents, and • increased river water temperatures, leading to reduced dissolved oxygen being available for fish. • higher concentrations of faecal indicators. The risk assessment forecast period used in the RBMP (2027), and the future scenario used in this WCS (to 2036, the end of the Local Plan period) are relatively near, and therefore the amount of environmental change as a result of climate change will be relatively limited compared to the longer-term scenarios considered in flood risk management (for example the SFRA considers climate impacts for the period 2070 to 2115). The RBMP has not considered summer flow and water temperatures in its risk assessment for 2027.
B.8.18 Developing a climate change scenario Analysis by CEH under the Future Flows project10 considered changes to future river flow and groundwater levels. This work used an 11 member “ensemble” of Hadley climate model runs, using a medium emissions scenario of climate change gases. This was used to drive hydrological models to assess the impact on river flows up to 2098. The detailed model outputs are not licensed for commercial use and therefore could not be considered in this study. However, the project reports contain national maps showing the possible impacts on river flow for the 11 members. The examples below show the outputs for mean flow and the 95-percentile exceedance flow (Q95) for the 2050s. These are the flow statistics used to define river flows within the SIMCAT water quality model.
10 CEH (2012) Future flows and groundwater levels SC090016. Final Technical Report. Accessed online at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130301204241/http://www.ceh.ac.uk//sci_programmes/Water/Future%20Flows/FFGWL ReportsandPublications.html on: 11/01/2018
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 21
Figure 20: Future flow assessment of the impact of climate change, mean flows, 2050s
Copyright © NERC 2012. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and Database Right.
Mean annual flows in the Bracknell area are predicted to slightly increase in 5 members, remain stable in four and to decrease in two.
Figure 21: Future flow assessment of the impact of climate change, Q95 flows, 2050s
Copyright © NERC 2012. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and Database Right.
The Q95 flow is predicted to increase in the Bracknell area in all but two members. The results, which only represent one future emissions scenario, illustrate the significant levels of uncertainty around the impacts of climate change on river flows in the study area. In order that an
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 22
assessment of possible climate impacts on water quality was made, it was decided to simulate one alternative future scenario, with planned growth to 2036 and with a 10% reduction in mean river flow and 20% reduction in Q95 flow for all modelled watercourses. Within SIMCAT this was applied to river flow datasets, such as for headwater and diffuse inflow. It is acknowledged that this is a simplistic approach and that simulating multiple scenarios following a probabilistic approach would be preferable, however, within the limited scope of this project, this is considered to be a useful scenario to test potential future climate impacts.
B.8.19 Results The future growth (2036) model was re-run using model mode zero with river flow modified to account for 10% and 20% reduction in mean and Q95 respectively. Results were first compared to the present- day baseline and then to the future growth model (in section B.7.15). Results are displayed in Annex C, which indicate in almost all cases, deterioration in all determinands. Table 7 shows deterioration of determinands with climate change applied. Table 7: Deterioration of determinands at sites with climate change applied (compared to the present-day baseline)
Percentage of deterioration compared to the baseline (2013 - 15) Feature Reach Ammonia BOD Phosphate (90%-ile) (90%-ile) (mean)
Ascot WwTW Bull Brook 0 1 2 WQ PTHR0012 Bull Brook, 2.75km 0 2 4 d/s of Ascot WwTW Bracknell WwTW Cut 17 12 14 WQ PTHR0125 Cut, 3.4km d/s of 16 13 16 Bracknell WwTW WQ PTHR0128 Cut, 1km u/s of 0 0 10 Bracknell WwTW WQ PTHR0124 Cut, 13.1km d/s of 11 7 17 Bracknell WwTW Easthampstead Emm Brook 64 13 6 WwTW WQ PLDR0015 Emm Brook, 9km d/s 0 2 5 of Easthampstead WwTW Sandhurst WwTW Blackwater 16 5 15 WQ PLDR0012 Blackwater, 2.5km 18 4 19 d/s of Sandhurst WwTW WQ PLDR0135 Blackwater, 2.3km 18 5 19 u/s of Sandhurst WwTW
Overall, there was significant deterioration predicted across the models at numerous water quality points and at treatment works, with only Ascot WwTW experiencing deterioration less than 10% or no class deterioration as a result of lower river flows. Phosphate class at Ascot deemed presently as 'Bad' within the SIMCAT results, did not deteriorate by more than three percent, however the downstream water quality point deteriorated from Poor to Bad class. Phosphate class deteriorated by more than 10% at Bracknell WwTW and Sandhurst WwTW. At Bracknell WwTW, Ammonia class fell from Good to Moderate as well as deterioration greater than 10% directly downstream of the site, at WQ PTHR0125 and WQ PTHR0124. Easthampstead WwTW experienced
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 23
deterioration greater than 10% of Ammonia and BOD. Although Phosphate did not deteriorate by 10%, Phosphate class was already deemed bad and deteriorated by more than three percent. Sandhurst WwTW experienced deterioration greater than 10% for Ammonia directly downstream of the site and at both upstream and downstream water quality points. There was also a similar trend with deterioration of greater than 10% for Phosphate at the site and both water quality points. There were various instances of class deterioration across the models. At Bracknell WwTW, Ammonia class fell from Good to Moderate class directly downstream of the site with BOD deteriorating from Poor to Bad class. At Easthampstead WwTW, BOD class fell from High to Good. Downstream of Ascot WwTW at WQ PTHR0012, Phosphate class deteriorated from Poor to Bad and at the downstream water quality point PLDR0012 (downstream of Sandhurst WwTW) Ammonia class fell from High to Good. The model with climate change applied was then compared to the future growth model (2036). Table 8 below shows the additional deterioration when climate change is applied to the future growth model.
Table 8: Sites with deterioration of determinands with climate change applied to the future growth model.
Percentage of additional deterioration compared to the future growth model (2036) Feature Reach Ammonia BOD Phosphate (90%-ile) (90%-ile) (mean)
Ascot WwTW Bull Brook 0 1 2 WQ PTHR0012 Bull Brook, 2.75km 0 2 3 d/s of Ascot WwTW Bracknell WwTW Cut 3 2 3 WQ PTHR0125 Cut, 3.4km d/s of 4 2 4 Bracknell WwTW WQ PTHR0128 Cut, 1km u/s of 0 0 8 Bracknell WwTW WQ PTHR0124 Cut, 13.1km d/s of 0 0 0 Bracknell WwTW Easthampstead Emm Brook 7 3 5 WwTW WQ PLDR0015 Emm Brook, 9km d/s 0 2 5 of Easthampstead WwTW Sandhurst WwTW Blackwater 6 2 6 WQ PLDR0012 Blackwater, 2.5km 6 1 6 d/s of Sandhurst
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 24
Percentage of additional deterioration compared to the future growth model (2036) Feature Reach Ammonia BOD Phosphate (90%-ile) (90%-ile) (mean)
WwTW WQ PLDR0135 Blackwater, 2.3km 4 2 7 u/s of Sandhurst WwTW
Overall, when climate change is applied to the future growth model deterioration was no greater than 10% in any determinand. There was no further deterioration where a determinand was already deemed 'Bad' and deteriorated further than 3percent. There was further class deterioration on two instances where Ammonia at Bracknell WwTW fell from Good to Moderate class and downstream of Ascot at WQ PTHR0012 where Phosphate class deteriorated from Poor to Bad class.
B.8.20 Climate resilience and adaptation Although this report has presented simplistic modelling of only one climate change scenario for future river flow, it does highlight the possible risks to future water quality and WFD status as a result of climate change. The resilience of catchments to adapt to climate change will depend on the successful application of a range of mitigation measures. These could include technical measures, for example improved wastewater treatment standards and heat recovery from treated effluents, as well as Catchment Based Approaches (CaBA). For example, measures aimed at reducing and slowing runoff can increase infiltration and improve base flows, whilst riparian buffer zones and tree planting can provide shading to watercourses to help reduce summer water temperatures, as well as moderating the impact of diffuse pollution sources.
B.9 Summary and conclusions Table 9 summarises the modelling results for passing or failing the following tests: • percentage deterioration; • class deterioration; • could the water body be prevented from meeting Good status?
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 25
Table 9: Summary of water quality assessment results
Could the development Could the development Could the development Watercourse cause a greater than cause a deterioration in prevent the water body (WwTW) 10% deterioration in WFD class of any from reaching Good (or WQ? element? High) class?
No infrastructure upgrade No infrastructure upgrade required to achieve required to achieve
Infrastructure upgrade likely to be required, but Infrastructure upgrade likely to be required, but achievable achievable using BAT, or Key using BAT not achievable due to current technology limits. Cannot be achieved using Cannot be achieved using BAT. Environmental capacity BAT. Environmental could be a constraint on growth. capacity could be a constraint on growth.
Good class is already being achieved for BOD and NH4. Good class could be achieved for P with the Predicted deterioration is No class deterioration is application of BAT and Bull Brook (Ascot) <10%. predicted. upstream water quality improvements. Proposed growth would not prevent good class from being achieved. Good class is already Predicted deterioration is being achieved for BOD Class deterioration predicted >10% for all determinands. and NH4. Good class could for BOD. Proposed Proposed development be achieved for P with the development can be Cut can be accommodated application of BAT and accommodated with a tighter with a tighter permit and upstream water quality (Bracknell) permit and upgrade to the upgrade to the WwTW. improvements. Proposed WwTW. This is achievable This is achievable using growth would not prevent with BAT. BAT good class from being achieved. Predicted deterioration is Good class is already 10% or greater for NH4 being achieved for BOD and BOD. Predicted class Class deterioration predicted and NH4. Good class could is Bad for P but for BOD. Proposed be achieved for P with the deterioration is <3%. development can be Emm Brook application of BAT and Proposed development accommodated with a tighter (Easthampstead) upstream water quality can be accommodated permit and upgrade to the improvements. Proposed with a tighter permit and WwTW. This is achievable growth would not prevent upgrade to the WwTW. with BAT. good class from being This is achievable using achieved. BAT Predicted deterioration of 10% for NH4 at WwTW Class deterioration predicted Good class is already and greater than 10% for Ammonia downstream of being achieved for BOD downstream of WwTW for treatment works. Proposed and NH4. Good class Blackwater both NH4 and P. Proposed development can be cannot be achieved for P (Sandhurst) development can be accommodated with a tighter due to current technology accommodated with a permit and upgrade to the limits. Proposed growth tighter permit and upgrade WwTW. This is achievable would not prevent good to the WwTW. This is with BAT. class from being achieved. achievable using BAT.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 26
• The proposed levels of growth to be treated by Ascot would not lead to a deterioration, either of 10% or of class. The Bull Brook is not currently meeting Good class for Phosphorous. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, The Cut could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. • At Bracknell WwTW, increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for BOD, Ammonia and Phosphate. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, The Cut could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. • Increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment of Easthampstead Park WwTW are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for BOD and Ammonia. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. Subject to both upstream water quality improvement and improvement of Phosphorous removal to BAT, the Emm Brook immediately downstream of the WwTW could meet Good class for all determinands, both now and following planned growth. The model indicates that Good class would not be reached at the next downstream sampling point (PLDR0015), however this is due to inflows from Ash Ridge WwTW. The impacts of growth and treatment improvements at Ash Ridge have not been investigated, as this treatment works does not serve any settlements within Bracknell Forest. • At Sandhurst WwTW, increased effluent discharges due to growth in the catchment are predicted to lead to a deterioration of 10% or more for Ammonia and Phosphorous. This deterioration could be prevented by a tightening of permits and possible infrastructure improvements. The Blackwater is not currently meeting Good class for Phosphorous, and Good class could not be achieved due to limitations of present-day Best Available Technology. The majority of development in the catchment is made up of completions and commitments during AMP6, principally 1,000 homes at Land at former TRL site, Nine Mile Ride (SALP policy SA5). Consequently, the predicted deterioration may occur early during the plan period (although this has not been tested). • Following completion of the water quality modelling, JBA Consulting were made aware of the Environment Agency’s updated guidance on permitting phosphorous. This guidance, based on the findings of the national programme of phosphorous removal trials, approves a new, lower TAL (Technically Achievable Limit, the new terminology for Best Available Technology) of 0.25mg/l as an annual average. The modelling has not been run using this new TAL, but it is not considered that this would fundamentally change the findings of this study. A deterioration of greater than 10% in phosphorous is predicted in The Cut downstream of Bracknell WwTW, however this can be corrected by tightening the permit within the old TAL of 0.5mg/l. The new, lower TAL could potentially enable Good classification to be achieved for phosphorous in the Blackwater, however this has not been tested. • An analysis of the potential impacts of reduced river flows as a result of climate change indicate that there is a significant risk of deterioration of water quality. It is expected that future River Basin Management Plans will investigate this risk further and consider how it can be mitigated. Wherever possible, plans should promote "no-regrets" decisions which enhance the resilience of river systems to climate change impacts, for example by promoting Catchment Based Approaches. • The planned growth within Bracknell Forest and its neighbouring authorities can be accommodated without causing a deterioration in water quality for sanitary determinands and nutrients, so long as timely interventions to prevent deterioration are implemented by Thames Water and the Environment Agency. Particular attention is drawn to the need to ensure that deterioration does not occur
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 27
as a result of ongoing committed development in the Sandhurst catchment during AMP6 (2015-2020). • The planned growth within Bracknell and its neighbouring authorities would not prevent Good class from being achieved, however Good class is not currently achievable in the Blackwater due to the limitations of present-day Phosphorous removal technologies.
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3 28
Annex A: Comparison of Base Case (2015) and Future (2036) (SIMCAT Model)
Bracknell_2013 -15 v Bracknell_2036 (Run Type 0) Bracknell_Baseline 2013 -2015 Percentage of (Run Type 0) Bracknell_2036 (Run Type 0) Numerical difference deterioration
NH4 BOD P NH4 BOD NH4 BOD P NH4 BOD Reach Flow (conc) (conc) (conc) Flow (conc) (conc) P (conc) (conc) (conc) (conc) (conc) (conc) P (conc) Feature Catchment Reach Nearest WwTW Number SIMCAT Model Used 95%ile 90%ile 90%ile mean 95%ile 90%ile 90%ile mean 90%ile 90%ile mean 90%ile 90%ile mean Ascot STW The Cut Bull Brook 731 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 6.8 0.09 4.06 1.12 7.07 0.09 4.07 1.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 TH-PTHR0012 The Cut Bull Brook d/s of Ascot 731 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 7.27 0.08 3.88 0.97 7.55 0.08 3.88 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.03 Bracknell STW The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 734 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 26.4 0.53 6.93 0.86 33.39 0.6 7.61 0.95 0.07 0.68 0.09 13.21 9.81 10.47 TH-PTHR0128 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) u/s of Bracknell 734 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 10.95 0.17 3.67 0.48 11.28 0.17 3.67 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.08 TH-PTHR0124 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 13.1km d/s of Bracknell 738 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 50.85 0.38 4.48 0.41 54.97 0.41 4.69 0.46 0.03 0.21 0.05 7.89 4.69 12.20 TH-PTHR0125 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 3.4km d/s of Bracknell 734 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 27.34 0.51 6.48 0.80 34.11 0.57 7.17 0.89 0.06 0.69 0.09 11.76 10.65 11.25 TH-PTHR0123 The Cut Cut (Ascot to Bull Brook confluence) 730 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 1.08 0.07 4.86 0.02 1.08 0.07 4.86 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TH-PTHR0460 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 734 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 10.78 0.17 3.72 0.50 11.09 0.17 3.72 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 Easthampstead STW Loddon Emm Brook 662 Thames RBD Model 1.45 0.36 3.88 1.11 1.69 0.55 4.26 1.12 0.19 0.38 0.01 52.78 9.79 0.90 TH-PLDR0015 Loddon Emm Brook d/s of Easthampstead 622 Thames RBD Model 5.47 0.08 2.16 0.56 5.69 0.08 2.16 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sandhurst STW Blackwater Blackwater 397 Blackwater Model 2013 - 15 69.15 0.31 2.4 0.33 71.15 0.34 2.46 0.36 0.03 0.06 0.03 9.68 2.50 9.09 TH-PLDR0135 Blackwater Blackwater u/s of Sandhurst 397 Blackwater Model 2013 - 16 62.7 0.22 2.36 0.26 63.95 0.25 2.44 0.29 0.03 0.08 0.03 13.64 3.39 11.54 TH-PLDR0012 Blackwater Blackwater d/s of Sandhurst 397 Blackwater Model 2013 - 17 69.42 0.28 2.25 0.32 71.51 0.31 2.31 0.36 0.03 0.06 0.04 10.71 2.67 12.50
Percentage of deterioration Determinand Statistic High Good Moderate Poor Bad -9.5 to -100 Ammonia 90%ile < 0.3 0.301 - 0.6 0.601 - 1.1 1.101 - 2.5 >2.501 -9.44 to -0.01 BOD 90%ile < 4 4.01 - 5 5.01 - 6 6.01 - 7.5 >7.501 0 Phosphate Mean < 0.05 0.0501 - 0.12 0.1201 - 0.25 0.2501 - 1 >1.01 0.01 to 9.44 9.5 to 99 > 100
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3
Annex B: Run type 9 (BAT for Base Case (2015) and Future (2036) (SIMCAT Model)
Bracknell_2013 -15 v Bracknell 2036 (Run Type 9) Bracknell_Baseline 2013 -2015 (Run Bracknell_2036 Type 9 - BAT) (Run Type 9 - BAT) Numerical difference Percentage of deterioration
NH4 BOD NH4 BOD P Phosphate Phosphate Reach Flow (conc) (conc) P (conc) Flow (conc) (conc) (conc) Ammonia BOD (conc) Ammonia BOD (conc) Feature Catchment Reach Nearest WwTW Number SIMCAT Model Used 95%ile 90%ile 90%ile mean 95%ile 90%ile 90%ile mean (90%ile (90%ile) mean (90%ile) (90%ile) mean Ascot STW The Cut Bull Brook 731 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 6.8 0.91 4.69 0.12 7.07 0.92 4.7 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.10 0.21 0.00 TH-PTHR0012 The Cut Bull Brook d/s of Ascot 731 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 7.27 0.75 4.38 0.11 7.55 0.76 4.39 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.33 0.23 0.00 Bracknell STW The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 734 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 26.4 0.51 4.5 0.12 33.39 0.57 4.5 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.00 11.76 0.00 0.00 TH-PTHR0128 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) u/s of Bracknell 734 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 10.95 0.45 3.82 0.06 11.28 0.47 3.82 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 TH-PTHR0124 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 13.1km d/s of Bracknell 738 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 32.47 0.36 3.76 0.08 36.56 0.42 3.77 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.00 16.67 0.27 0.00 TH-PTHR0125 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 3.4km d/s of Bracknell 734 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 27.34 0.48 4.32 0.11 34.11 0.55 4.33 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.00 14.58 0.23 0.00 TH-PTHR0123 The Cut Cut (Ascot to Bull Brook confluence) 730 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 1.08 0.07 4.86 0.03 1.08 0.07 4.86 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TH-PTHR0460 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 734 Cut & Bull 2013 - 15 10.78 0.47 3.95 0.07 11.09 0.48 3.99 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.00 2.13 1.01 0.00 Easthampstead STW Loddon Emm Brook 662 Thames RBD Model 1.45 0.36 3.88 0.12 1.69 0.49 4.26 0.12 0.13 0.38 0.00 36.11 9.79 0.00 TH-PLDR0015 Loddon Emm Brook d/s of Easthampstead 622 Thames RBD Model 5.47 0.07 2.16 0.18 5.69 0.08 2.16 0.185 0.01 0.00 0.01 14.29 0.00 2.78 Sandhurst STW Blackwater Blackwater 397 Blackwater Model 2013 - 15 69.15 0.22 2.79 0.29 71.15 0.28 3.25 0.29 0.06 0.46 0.00 27.27 16.49 0.00 TH-PLDR0135 Blackwater Blackwater u/s of Sandhurst 397 Blackwater Model 2013 - 16 62.7 0.23 2.82 0.28 54.79 0.29 3.31 0.29 0.06 0.49 0.01 26.09 17.38 3.57 TH-PLDR0012 Blackwater Blackwater d/s of Sandhurst 397 Blackwater Model 2013 - 17 69.42 0.21 2.62 0.26 61.63 0.27 3.03 0.26 0.06 0.41 0.00 28.57 15.65 0.00
Percentage of deterioration Determinand Statistic High Good Moderate Poor Bad -9.5 to -100 Ammonia 90%ile < 0.3 0.301 - 0.6 0.601 - 1.1 1.101 - 2.5 >2.501 -9.44 to -0.01 BOD 90%ile < 4 4.01 - 5 5.01 - 6 6.01 - 7.5 >7.501 0 Phosphate Mean < 0.05 0.0501 - 0.12 0.1201 - 0.25 0.2501 - 1 >1.01 0.01 to 9.44 9.5 to 99
> 100
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3
Annex C: Comparison of Base Case (2015) and Future (2036) with the application of Climate Change (SIMCAT Model)
Bracknell_2013-15 v Bracknell_2035_CC (Run Type 0) Bracknell_2036 v 2036 (CC) Bracknell_Baseline 2013 -2015 Bracknell_2036 Bracknell_2036_Climate (Run Type 0) (Run Type 0) Change (Run type 0) Numerical difference Percentage of deterioration Percentage of deterioration
NH4 BOD P NH4 BOD P NH4 BOD Flow (conc) (conc) (conc) Flow (conc) (conc) (conc) Flow (conc) (conc) P (conc) NH4 BOD P (conc) NH4 BOD P (conc) NH4 BOD P (conc) Feature Catchment Reach 95%ile 90%ile 90%ile mean 95%ile 90%ile 90%ile mean 95%ile 90%ile 90%ile mean (90%ile) (90%ile) mean (90%ile) (90%ile) mean (90%ile) (90%ile) mean Ascot STW The Cut Bull Brook 6.8 0.09 4.06 1.12 7.07 0.09 4.07 1.12 6.95 0.09 4.12 1.14 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 1.48 1.79 0.00 1.23 1.79 TH-PTHR0012 The Cut Bull Brook 7.27 0.08 3.88 0.97 7.55 0.08 3.88 0.98 7.39 0.08 3.96 1.01 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.00 2.06 4.12 0.00 2.06 3.06 Bracknell STW The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 26.4 0.53 6.93 0.86 33.39 0.6 7.61 0.95 32.5 0.62 7.79 0.98 0.09 0.86 0.12 16.98 12.41 13.95 3.33 2.37 3.16 TH-PTHR0128 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 10.95 0.17 3.67 0.48 11.28 0.17 3.67 0.49 10.54 0.17 3.68 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.27 10.42 0.00 0.27 8.16 TH-PTHR0124 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 50.85 0.38 4.48 0.41 54.97 0.41 4.69 0.46 53.08 0.42 4.78 0.48 0.04 0.30 0.07 10.53 6.70 17.07 0.00 0.21 0.00 TH-PTHR0125 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 27.34 0.51 6.48 0.80 34.11 0.57 7.17 0.89 33.09 0.59 7.32 0.93 0.08 0.84 0.13 15.69 12.96 16.25 3.51 2.09 4.49 TH-PTHR0123 The Cut Cut (Ascot to Bull Brook confluence) 1.08 0.07 4.86 0.02 1.08 0.07 4.86 0.02 0.88 0.07 4.87 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 TH-PTHR0460 The Cut Cut (Binfield to River Thames confluence) 10.78 0.17 3.72 0.50 11.09 0.17 3.72 0.51 10.35 0.18 3.78 0.55 0.01 0.06 0.05 5.88 1.61 10.00 5.88 1.61 7.84 Easthampstead STW Loddon Emm Brook 1.45 0.36 3.88 1.11 1.69 0.55 4.26 1.12 1.46 0.59 4.39 1.18 0.23 0.51 0.07 63.89 13.14 6.31 7.27 3.05 5.36 TH-PLDR0015 Loddon Emm Brook 5.47 0.08 2.16 0.56 5.69 0.08 2.16 0.56 5.11 0.08 2.2 0.59 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 1.85 5.36 0.00 1.85 5.36 Sandhurst STW Blackwater Blackwater 69.15 0.31 2.4 0.33 71.15 0.34 2.46 0.36 67.4 0.36 2.51 0.38 0.05 0.11 0.05 16.13 4.58 15.15 5.88 2.03 5.56 TH-PLDR0135 Blackwater Blackwater 62.7 0.22 2.36 0.26 63.95 0.25 2.44 0.29 60.12 0.26 2.48 0.31 0.04 0.12 0.05 18.18 5.08 19.23 4.00 1.64 6.90 TH-PLDR0012 Blackwater Blackwater 69.42 0.28 2.25 0.32 71.51 0.31 2.31 0.36 67.7 0.33 2.34 0.38 0.05 0.09 0.06 17.86 4.00 18.75 6.45 1.30 5.56
Percentage of deterioration Determinand Statistic High Good Moderate Poor Bad -9.5 to -100 Ammonia 90%ile < 0.3 0.301 - 0.6 0.601 - 1.1 1.101 - 2.5 >2.501 -9.44 to -0.01 BOD 90%ile < 4 4.01 - 5 5.01 - 6 6.01 - 7.5 >7.501 0 Phosphate Mean < 0.05 0.0501 - 0.12 0.1201 - 0.25 0.2501 - 1 >1.01 0.01 to 9.44 9.5 to 99 > 100
2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - Appendix B - Water Quality Assessment v2.3
Offices at Coleshill Doncaster Dublin Edinburgh Exeter Glasgow Haywards Heath Isle of Man Limerick Newcastle upon Tyne Newport Peterborough Saltaire Skipton Tadcaster Thirsk Wallingford Warrington
Registered Office South Barn Broughton Hall SKIPTON North Yorkshire BD23 3AE United Kingdom
t: +44(0)1756 799919 e: [email protected]
Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd Registered in England 3246693
Visit our website www.jbaconsulting.com