Charnwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Update

Final Report

June 2014

This page is intentionally left blank

Charnwood Borough Council Project Manager Liz Aspray Charnwood Borough Council Southfield Road Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 2TN JBA Project Manager Claire Gardner The Library St Philip‟s Courtyard Church End COLESHILL B46 3AD

Revision History

Revision Ref / Amendments Issued to Date Issued

 Liz Aspray (Charnwood Borough Council)  Tim Andrews Draft (version 1) (Environment Agency) February 2014  Greg Cunningham (Leicestershire County Council)

 Amendments based on Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire  Liz Aspray (Charnwood County Council and Environment Borough Council) Final Draft Agency comments.  Tim Andrews (version 1)  Additional section added to include (Environment Agency) April 2014 assessment of all available sites  Greg Cunningham within Charnwood Borough to (Leicestershire County provide support for the Sequential Council) test.  Liz Aspray (Charnwood  Amendments based on Charnwood Borough Council) Borough Council, Leicestershire  Tim Andrews Final (version 1) County Council and Environment (Environment Agency) June 2014 Agency comments.  Greg Cunningham (Leicestershire County Council)

Contract This report describes work commissioned by Charnwood Borough Council by a letter dated 19 September 2013. Charnwood Borough Council‟s representative for the contract was Liz Aspray. Andrew Waite and Claire Gardner of JBA Consulting carried out this work.

Prepared by ...... Andrew Waite BSc MRes Assistant Analyst Claire Gardner BSc MSc FRGS Analyst

Reviewed by ...... David Kearney BSc MSc MCIWEM C.WEM Principal Analyst

Purpose This document has been prepared as a draft report for Charnwood Borough 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 Charnwood Borough Council. Copyright © Jeremy Benn Associates Limited 2014 Carbon Footprint A printed copy of the main text in this document will result in a carbon footprint of 643g if 100% post-consumer recycled paper is used and 819g 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. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Liz Apray (Charnwood Borough Council), Tim Andrews (Environment Agency) and Jonathan McGuiness and Greg Cunningham (Leicestershire County Council) for their support and assistance with this study. Front cover image: Meadow Lane, Loughborough Meadows, during the 2012 floods

This page is intentionally left blank

Executive summary Introduction This Charnwood Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2014 Update report updates the document “Charnwood Borough Council: Charnwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report, April 2008”. This report has been prepared to update the work that was included in the previous SFRA and provide appropriate supporting evidence for the Charnwood Borough Plan. Since the previous SFRA there have been a number of changes to the planning system, including the Localism Act (2011) and the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014). In addition, the provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) have been substantially commenced under a programme that was initiated by Defra in April 2010 and the Flood Risk Regulations came into force in December 2009 (these regulations transposed the EU „Floods Directive‟ into UK law). The purpose of this SFRA update is to  provide information on the changes to planning, policy and guidance since the previous SFRA;  provide a detailed assessment of the flood hazard within the Flood Zones;  provide information on existing defences and flood risk management measures;  allow a sequential approach to site allocation to be undertaken within a flood zone; and  allow development of the policies and practices required to ensure that development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 satisfies the requirements of the Exception Test. SFRA objectives There are two levels of SFRAs 1. Level One: where flooding is not a major issue and where development pressures are low. The Assessment should be sufficiently detailed to allow application of the Sequential Test 2. Level Two: where land outside flood risk areas cannot appropriately accommodate all the necessary development and the NPPF‟s Exception Test needs to be applied. The Assessment should consider the detailed nature of the flood characteristics within a flood zone.

A Level 1 SFRA was completed in April 2008, comprising of a desk-based study using existing information to allow application of the Sequential Test and identify whether application of the Exception Test is likely to be necessary. The objectives of this SFRA update are a hybrid approach involving a general update and review of the 2008 SFRA, which covers the whole of the Borough (level 1) and a more detailed assessment of allocations included in the emerging draft Core Strategy. SFRA outputs Level one outputs  Maps showing the local planning authority area, Main Rivers, ordinary watercourses, and flood zones  An assessment of the implications of climate change for flood risk at allocated development sites  Areas at risk from other sources of flooding, for example surface water or reservoir  Flood risk management measures, including location and standard of flood defences, flood warning coverage and emergency plans  Recommendations about the identification of critical drainage areas and the potential need for surface water management plans

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 i

 Advice on the likely applicability of sustainable drainage systems for managing surface water runoff at key development sites  Advice of the preparation of flood risk assessments for development sites Level two outputs  An appraisal of current condition of flood defence infrastructure  An appraisal of the probability and consequences of overtopping or failure of flood risk management infrastructure, including an allowance for climate change  Definition and mapping of the function floodplain  Definition and mapping of o Flood depth o Flood velocity o Flood hazard  Maps showing the distribution of flood risk across all flood zones from all sources of flooding  Advice on appropriate policies for sites which could satisfy the first part of the Exception Test and on the requirements that would be necessary for a site-specific flood risk assessment supporting a planning application for an application to pass the second part of the Exception Test  Advice on the preparation of site-specific flood risk assessments for sites of varying risk across the flood zones, including information about the use of sustainable drainage techniques  Recommendations to inform policy, development control and technical issues Summary  The Charnwood SFRA update has considered all sources of flooding, including fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, canal, reservoir and sewer flooding, within the Charnwood Borough.  An assessment of the flood defences in the Borough has been undertaken, including defence condition and standard and the residual risk.  Flood risk has been assessed for all development options which have been considered for inclusion in the draft Core Strategy.  Flood risk has been assessed in detail for the development options being taken forward in the Core Strategy. Guidance for the requirements for a site specific Flood Risk Assessment for these sites is provided (section 7.2), as well as general guidance on flood risk assessment for any development proposals within the Charnwood Borough.  The updated Flood Map for Surface Water is provided, indicating the likelihood of surface water flooding in the Charnwood Borough.  Surface water flooding is a risk in many of the areas. Advice has been provided regarding suitable SuDS options.  A broad scale assessment of Critical Drainage Areas has been undertaken.  Green Infrastructure within the Borough has been assessed and the WFD status of the Borough‟s watercourses assessed. Recommendations Key recommendations  It is recommended that the mapping produced for this SFRA update is used in preference to the previous SFRA published in 2008.  It is recommended that developers refer to the FRA recommendations provided in the proposed development site summary tables in Section 7.2 as well as the general guidance on flood risk assessment in Section 12.  The key requirements for future development are summarised below:

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 ii

o All sites within Zones 2 and 3 will require a detailed Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with NPPF, making reference to Sections 7.2 and 12, and associated maps of this report. Consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency is strongly recommended at an early stage in the FRA process. o The layout of buildings and access routes should adopt a sequential approach, steering buildings (and hence people) towards areas of lowest risk within the boundaries of the site. This will also ensure that the risk of flooding is not worsened by, for example, blocked flood flow routes. o The FRA requirements defined in Section 12 of this Level 2 SFRA must be considered for all future development brought forward.  Any development adjacent to the canals should take account of residual risk from breach or failure and it is recommended the development incorporates a buffer zone next to the canal to allow access for maintenance and repair, should it be required. Development and Flood Risk All development should adhere to the advice in the Charnwood Borough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Update and the guidance provided on Flood Risk Assessment requirements in order to:  protect floodplains from inappropriate development;  ensure no increase in flood risk;  where possible provide flood risk betterment; and  ensure development is safe. Protection and Enhancement of Watercourses Planning permission for development should only be granted where:  the natural watercourse system which provides drainage of land is not adversely affected;  a minimum 8m width access strip is provided adjacent to the top of both banks of any watercourses for maintenance purposes and is appropriately landscaped for open space and Biodiversity benefits, this width may be reduced in particular circumstances with agreement from the Environment Agency and LPA;  it would not result in the loss of open water features through draining, culverting or enclosure by other means and culverts are opened up where ever possible;  surface water drainage is delivered by sustainable drainage systems (SuDS); and  betterment in the surface water runoff regime is ensured; with any residual risk of flooding, from drainage features either on or off site not placing people and property at unacceptable risk. Use of SFRA data It is important to recognise that the SFRA has been developed using the best available information at the time of writing. This relates both to the current risk of flooding from rivers, and the potential impacts of future climate change. The Environment Agency regularly reviews their flood risk mapping, and it is important that they are approached to determine whether updated (more accurate) information is available prior to commencing a detailed Flood Risk Assessment. The SFRA update is a living document and should be periodically updated when new information on flood risk, flood warning or new planning guidance or legislation becomes available. New information on flood risk may be provided by the Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council (in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority), the Highways Authority, Severn Trent Water and the Environment Agency.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 iii

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 iv

Contents Executive summary ...... i 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment ...... 1 1.2 SFRA objectives ...... 2 1.3 SFRA user guide ...... 4 1.4 Approach ...... 5 1.5 Consultation ...... 5 2 The Planning Framework and Flood Risk Policy ...... 6 2.1 Introduction ...... 6 2.2 Flood Risk Regulations (2009) and Flood and Water Management Act (2010)...... 6 2.3 Localism Act (2011) ...... 7 2.4 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 7 2.5 Surface Water Management Plans ...... 8 2.6 Association of British Insurers Guidance on Insurance and Planning in Flood Risk Areas for Local Planning Authorities in England ...... 8 2.7 Implications for Charnwood Borough ...... 8 3 Understanding flood risk in Charnwood Borough ...... 12 3.1 Historic flooding ...... 12 3.2 Topography, hydrology, geology and soils ...... 12 3.3 Fluvial flood risk ...... 16 3.4 Flood defences, assets and structures ...... 16 3.5 Surface water flooding ...... 21 3.6 Groundwater flooding ...... 22 3.7 Flooding from sewers ...... 22 3.8 Flooding from reservoirs, canals and other artificial sources ...... 23 3.9 The impact of climate change ...... 23 3.10 Catchment Flood Management Plans ...... 24 3.11 Emergency planning in the Borough ...... 25 4 How flood risk is assessed ...... 27 4.1 Definitions ...... 27 4.2 Using SFRA risk information...... 28 4.3 Possible responses to flooding ...... 30 5 Mapping and risk based approach ...... 33 5.1 Summary of mapping for all sources of flood risk ...... 33 5.2 Other relevant flood risk information ...... 34 5.3 Sequential approach ...... 34 5.4 Sequential Test ...... 35 5.5 Exception Test ...... 38 5.6 Cumulative impact of development ...... 38 6 Overview of all development options ...... 39 6.1 Review of future development ...... 39 6.2 Assessment of flood risk to all potential development sites within Charnwood Borough...... 40 7 Detailed assessment of draft Core Strategy site allocations and Directions of Growth ...... 53 7.1 Introduction ...... 53 7.2 Summary tables and maps ...... 55 8 Flood risk from canals and reservoirs ...... 99 8.1 Introduction ...... 99 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 v

8.2 Flood risk from canals ...... 99 8.3 Flood risk from reservoirs ...... 100 9 Flood defences and critical structures ...... 103 9.1 Flood defences ...... 103 9.2 „Critical Structures‟ ...... 115 10 Critical Drainage Areas ...... 117 10.1 Introduction ...... 117 10.2 Critical Drainage Areas ...... 117 11 Green Infrastructure and Water Framework Directive ...... 121 11.1 Green Infrastructure ...... 121 11.2 Water Framework Directive ...... 122 12 Guidance for planners and developers ...... 127 12.1 Over-arching principles ...... 127 12.2 Requirements for flood risk assessments ...... 127 12.3 Mitigation measures ...... 127 12.4 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems ...... 129 12.5 Reducing flood risk ...... 130 12.6 Reducing flood risk from other sources ...... 132 12.7 Making development sites safe ...... 133 12.8 Making space for water...... 133 13 Summary and recommendations ...... 135 13.1 Summary ...... 135 13.2 Recommendations ...... 135 13.3 Use of SFRA data ...... 136 Appendices...... I A Flood Zone mapping ...... III B Climate change mapping ...... V C Depth mapping ...... VII D Velocity mapping ...... IX E Hazard mapping ...... XI F Surface water mapping ...... XIII G Groundwater mapping ...... XV H Flood warning coverage ...... XVII I Summary of flood defences in Charnwood Borough ...... XIX J Watercourses in the Charnwood Borough ...... XXI K Note on sources of flood risk information ...... XXIII

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 vi

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Strategic Flood Risk Assessment study area ...... 3 Figure 1-2: Flood Risk Management Hierarchy ...... 5 Figure 2-1: Flood Risk Regulation Requirements ...... 6 Figure 2-2: Strategic planning links and key documents for flood risk ...... 10 Figure 3-1: Charnwood Borough: topography ...... 13 Figure 3-2: North Loughborough Flood Defences ...... 17 Figure 3-3: East Loughborough Flood Defences ...... 18 Figure 3-4: Quorn Flood Defences ...... 19 Figure 3-5: Rothley Flood Defences ...... 20 Figure 3-6: Birstall Flood Defences ...... 21 Figure 4-1: Uses of SFRA information ...... 28 Figure 4-2: Flood Zone definition ...... 28 Figure 6-1: Potential development location – West of Loughborough ...... 40 Figure 6-2: Potential development location – South west of Loughborough ...... 41 Figure 6-3: Potential development location – South of Loughborough ...... 42 Figure 6-4: Potential development location – Adjoining Shepshed ...... 43 Figure 6-5: Potential development location – North of Birstall ...... 44 Figure 6-6: Potential development location – North east of Leicester SUE ...... 45 Figure 6-7: Potential development location – North of Glenfield ...... 45 Figure 6-8: Potential development location – Loughborough Science and Enterprise Park .... 46 Figure 6-9: Potential development location – Wymeswold Airfield...... 47 Figure 6-10: Potential development location – East of Loughborough ...... 48 Figure 6-11: Potential development location – South east of Syston ...... 49 Figure 6-12: Potential development location – Adjoining Anstey ...... 49 Figure 6-13: Potential development location – Watermead Corridor ...... 50 Figure 6-14: Potential development location – Service Centres ...... 51 Figure 6-15: Applying the Sequential Test in the preparation of a Local Plan† ...... 52 Figure 9-1: 100-year Undefended & Defended Flood Outlines at Thurmaston ...... 104 Figure 9-2: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline at Thurmaston ...... 105 Figure 9-3: 100-year Undefended & Defended Flood Outlines at Rothley ...... 106 Figure 9-4: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline at Rothley ...... 107 Figure 9-5: 100-year Defended and Undefended Flood Outlines at Quorn ...... 108 Figure 9-6: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline at Quorn ...... 108 Figure 9-7: 100-year Defended and Undefended Flood Outlines on the Black Brook ...... 109 Figure 9-8: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline on the Black Brook ...... 110 Figure 9-9: 100-year Defended and Undefended Flood Outline in North Loughborough ...... 111 Figure 9-10: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline in North Loughborough ...... 111 Figure 9-11: NaFRA mapping at Thurmaston ...... 112

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 vii

Figure 9-12: NaFRA mapping at Rothley ...... 113 Figure 9-13: NaFRA mapping at Quorn ...... 113 Figure 9-14: NaFRA mapping along the Black Brook ...... 114 Figure 9-15: NaFRA mapping at North Loughborough ...... 114 Figure 10-1: Critical Drainage Areas – North Charnwood Borough ...... 119 Figure 10-2: Critical Drainage Areas – South Charnwood Borough ...... 119 Figure 11-1: WFD overall classification of surface water bodies in the Charnwood Borough ...... 126 Figure 12-1: Rationale for flood resilient and/or resistant design strategies ...... 128

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 viii

List of Tables Table 1-1: SFRA Report Contents ...... 4 Table 2-1: Roles and Responsibilities in Leicestershire ...... 8 Table 3-1: Watercourses in Charnwood Borough* ...... 14 Table 3-2: Defence asset condition rating ...... 16 Table 3-3: Flood Alert coverage ...... 26 Table 3-4: Flood Warning Coverage ...... 26 Table 4-1: Flood Zone descriptions ...... 29 Table 6-1: Summary of flood risk coverage to potential development options ...... 52 Table 7-1: Summary of SuDS Categories ...... 53 Table 7-2: Site Summary Table: North East of Leicester SUE ...... 55 Table 7-3: Site Summary Table: North of Birstall Direction of Growth ...... 58 Table 7-4: Site Summary Table: Watermead Regeneration Corridor (Site 1) ...... 61 Table 7-5: Site Summary Table: Watermead Regeneration Corridor (Site 2) ...... 64 Table 7-6: Site Summary Table: West of Loughborough SUE ...... 67 Table 7-7: Site Summary Table: Loughborough Science & Enterprise Park ...... 71 Table 7-8: Site Summary Table: Shepshed Direction of Growth...... 74 Table 7-9: Site Summary Table: Anstey Service Centre ...... 77 Table 7-10: Site Summary Table: Sileby Service Centre ...... 80 Table 7-11: Site Summary Table: Quorn Service Centre ...... 83 Table 7-12: Site Summary Table: Syston Service Centre ...... 86 Table 7-13: Site Summary Table: Barrow upon Soar Service Centre ...... 89 Table 7-14: Site Summary Table: Mountsorrel Service Centre ...... 92 Table 7-15: Site Summary Table: Rothley Service Centre ...... 95 Table 8-1: Reservoirs in the vicinity of Charnwood Borough ...... 100 Table 9-1: NaFRA classifications...... 112 Table 9-2: Designation conditions ...... 115 Table 10-1: Possible Critical Drainage Areas ...... 118 Table 12-1: Example of SuDS Techniques ...... 130

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 ix

Abbreviations and Glossary of Terms

Term Definition 1D model One-dimensional hydraulic model 2D model Two-dimensional hydraulic model AEP Annual Exceedance Probability AIMS Asset Information Management System CC Climate change - Long term variations in global temperature and weather patterns caused by natural and human actions. CBC Charnwood Borough Council CDA Critical Drainage Area - A discrete geographic area (usually a hydrological catchment) where multiple and interlinked sources of flood risk (surface water, groundwater, sewer, main river and/or tidal) cause flooding in one or more Local Flood Risk Zones during severe weather thereby affecting people, property or local infrastructure. CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan- A high-level planning strategy through which the Environment Agency works with their key decision makers within a river catchment to identify and agree policies to secure the long-term sustainable management of flood risk. CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association Cumecs The cumec is a measure of flow rate. One cumec is shorthand for cubic metre per second; also m3/s. Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEM Digital Elevation Model Designated Feature A form of legal protection or status reserved for certain key structures or features that are privately owned and maintained, but which make a contribution to the flood or coastal erosion risk management of people and property at a particular location. DG5 Register A water-company held register of properties which have experienced sewer flooding due to hydraulic overload, or properties which are 'at risk' of sewer flooding more frequently than once in 20 years. DPD Development Plan Documents DTM Digital Terrain Model EA Environment Agency EU European Union FEH Flood Estimation Handbook FMfSW Flood Map for Surface Water Flood defence Infrastructure used to protect an area against floods as floodwalls and embankments; they are designed to a specific standard of protection (design standard). Flood Risk Area An area determined as having a significant risk of flooding in accordance with guidance published by Defra and WAG (Welsh Assembly Government). Flood Risk Regulations Transposition of the EU Floods Directive into UK law. The EU Floods Directive is a piece of European Community (EC) legislation to specifically address flood risk by prescribing a common framework for its measurement and management. Floods and Water Part of the UK Government's response to Sir Michael Pitt's Report on the Management Act Summer 2007 floods, the aim of which is to clarify the legislative framework for managing surface water flood risk in England. Fluvial Flooding Flooding resulting from water levels exceeding the bank level of a main river FRA Flood Risk Assessment - A site specific assessment of all forms of flood risk to the site and the impact of development of the site to flood risk in the area. FRM Flood Risk Management FZ Flood Zones GI Green Infrastructure – a network of natural environmental components and green spaces that intersperse and connect the urban centres, suburbs and urban fringe Ha Hectare Indicative Flood Risk Nationally identified flood risk areas, based on the definition of „significant‟ Area flood risk described by Defra and WAG. JBA Jeremy Benn Associates LDDs Local Development Documents LDF Local Development Framework LFRMS Local Food Risk Management Strategy 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 x

Term Definition LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority - Local Authority responsible for taking the lead on local flood risk management LLR LRF Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Local Resilience Forum LPA Local Planning Authority mAOD metres Above Ordnance Datum Main River A watercourse shown as such on the Main River Map, and for which the Environment Agency has responsibilities and powers NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NRD National Receptor Dataset – a collection of risk receptors produced by the Environment Agency Ordinary Watercourse All watercourses that are not designated Main River. Local Authorities or, where they exist, IDBs have similar permissive powers as the Environment Agency in relation to flood defence work. However, the riparian owner has the responsibility of maintenance. OS NGR Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment Pitt Review Comprehensive independent review of the 2007 summer floods by Sir Michael Pitt, which provided recommendations to improve flood risk management in England. PPG Planning Policy Guidance – superseded by the NPPF PPS25 Planning and Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Resilience Measures Measures designed to reduce the impact of water that enters property and businesses; could include measures such as raising electrical appliances. Resistance Measures Measures designed to keep flood water out of properties and businesses; could include flood guards for example. Risk In flood risk management, risk is defined as a product of the probability or likelihood of a flood occurring, and the consequence of the flood. Return Period Is an estimate of the interval of time between events of a certain intensity or size, in this instance it refers to flood events. It is a statistical measurement denoting the average recurrence interval over an extended period of time. SAB SuDS Approval Body - responsible for approving, adopting and maintaining drainage plans and SuDS schemes that meet the National Standards Sewer flooding Flooding caused by a blockage or overflowing in a sewer or urban drainage system. SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment - The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) is a technical piece of evidence to support the draft Core Strategy and Sites & Policies Development Plan Documents (DPDs). Its purpose is to demonstrate that there is a supply of housing land in the District which is suitable and deliverable. SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Stakeholder A person or organisation affected by the problem or solution, or interested in the problem or solution. They can be individuals or organisations, includes the public and communities. SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems - Methods of management practices and control structures that are designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable manner than some conventional techniques SUE Sustainable Urban Extension Surface water flooding Flooding as a result of surface water runoff as a result of high intensity rainfall when water is ponding or flowing over the ground surface before it enters the underground drainage network or watercourse, or cannot enter it because the network is full to capacity, thus causing what is known as pluvial flooding. SWMP Surface Water Management Plan - The SWMP plan should outline the preferred surface water management strategy and identify the actions, timescales and responsibilities of each partner. It is the principal output from the SWMP study. uFMfSW Updated Flood Map for Surface Water WFD Water Framework Directive

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 xi

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 xii

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment This Charnwood Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2014 Update report updates the document “Charnwood Borough Council: Charnwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report, April 2008”. This report has been prepared to update the work that was included in the previous SFRA and provide appropriate supporting evidence for the Charnwood Borough Plan. Since the previous SFRA there have been a number of changes to the planning system, including the Localism Act (2011) and the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014). In addition, the provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) have been substantially commenced under a programme that was initiated by Defra in April 2010 and the Flood Risk Regulations came into force in December 2009 (these regulations transposed the EU „Floods Directive‟ into UK law). The purpose of this SFRA update is to  provide information on the changes to planning, policy and guidance since the previous SFRA;  provide a detailed assessment of the flood hazard within the Flood Zones;  provide information on existing defences and flood risk management measures;  allow a sequential approach to site allocation to be undertaken within a flood zone; and  allow development of the policies and practices required to ensure that development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 satisfies the requirements of the Exception Test.

The SFRA will form an integral part of the Council‟s evidence base in terms of identifying locations for development and preparation of flood risk policies in the Local Development Framework. The primary objective of the SFRA is to be part of the evidence base supporting the Borough Plan to inform draft Core Strategy allocations so they are in accordance with the NPPF1. In order to achieve this, the Planning Practice Guidance2 states that SFRAs need to provide sufficient detail on all types of flood risk to enable the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to:  Determine the variations in risk from all sources of flooding across their areas, and also the risks to and from surrounding areas in the same flood catchment  Inform the sustainability appraisal of the Local Plan, so that flood risk is fully taken into account when considering allocation options and in the preparation of plan policies, including policies for flood risk management to ensure that flood risk is not increased  Apply the Sequential and, where necessary, Exception Tests in determining land use allocations  Identify the requirements for site specific flood risk assessments in particular locations, including those at risk from sources other than river and sea flooding  Determine the acceptability of flood risk in relation to emergency planning capability  Consider opportunities to reduce flood risk to existing communities and developments through better management of surface water, provision for conveyance and storage of flood water This document has been prepared under the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and accompanying Flood Risk and Coast Change Planning Practice Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2014, as well as the Environment Agency‟s Strategic Flood Risk Assessments guidance3.

1 National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012) 2 National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2014) 3 Strategic Flood Risk Assessments: Guidance to support the National Planning Policy Framework (Environment Agency, July 2013) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 1

The extent of the study area is shown in Figure 1-1.

1.2 SFRA objectives There are two levels of SFRAs2. 3. Level One: where flooding is not a major issue and where development pressures are low. The Assessment should be sufficiently detailed to allow application of the Sequential Test 4. Level Two: where land outside flood risk areas cannot appropriately accommodate all the necessary development and the NPPF‟s Exception Test needs to be applied. The Assessment should consider the detailed nature of the flood characteristics within a flood zone.

A Level 1 SFRA was completed in April 2008, comprising of a desk-based study using existing information to allow application of the Sequential Test and identify whether application of the Exception Test is likely to be necessary. The objectives of this SFRA update are a hybrid approach involving a general update and review of the 2008 SFRA, which covers the whole of the Borough (level 1) and a more detailed assessment of allocations included in the emerging draft Core Strategy.

1.2.1 Level one outputs  Maps showing the local planning authority area, Main Rivers, ordinary watercourses, and flood zones  An assessment of the implications of climate change for flood risk at allocated development sites  Areas at risk from other sources of flooding, for example surface water or reservoir  Flood risk management measures, including location and standard of flood defences, flood warning coverage and emergency plans  Recommendations about the identification of critical drainage areas and the potential need for surface water management plans  Advice on the likely applicability of sustainable drainage systems for managing surface water runoff at key development sites  Advice of the preparation of flood risk assessments for development sites

1.2.2 Level two outputs  An appraisal of current condition of flood defence infrastructure  An appraisal of the probability and consequences of overtopping or failure of flood risk management infrastructure, including an allowance for climate change  Definition and mapping of the function floodplain  Definition and mapping of o Flood depth o Flood velocity o Flood hazard  Maps showing the distribution of flood risk across all flood zones from all sources of flooding  Advice on appropriate policies for sites which could satisfy the first part of the Exception Test and on the requirements that would be necessary for a site-specific flood risk assessment supporting a planning application for an application to pass the second part of the Exception Test  Advice on the preparation of site-specific flood risk assessments for sites of varying risk across the flood zones, including information about the use of sustainable drainage techniques  Recommendations to inform policy, development control and technical issues

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 2

Figure 1-1: Strategic Flood Risk Assessment study area

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 3

1.3 SFRA user guide Table 1-1 summarises the contents of this report. Table 1-1: SFRA Report Contents

Section Contents 1. Introduction Provides a background to the study, defines objectives, outlines the approach adopted and the consultation performed 2 The Planning Framework and Flood Risk Policy Provides details on recent changes to planning and flood risk policies. 3. Understanding flood risk in Charnwood Gives an introduction to the assessment of flood Borough risk and provides an overview of the characteristics of flooding affecting the Charnwood Borough. Provides a summary of responses that can be made to flood risk, together with policy and institutional issues that should be considered. 4. How Flood Risk is Assessed Provides an overview of flooding and risk and flood zones 5. Mapping and Risk-based Approach Summary of the modelling used for the assessment. Description of mapping that should be used for Sequential and Exception testing. Application of the Sequential Approach and Sequential/Exception Test process. 6. Overview of all development options Summarises all development options which have been considered for inclusion in the draft Core Strategy, and provides a brief overview of flood risk to these sites. 7. Detailed assessment of draft Core Strategy site Detailed summary of risk to draft Core Strategy allocations and Directions of Growth site allocations and Directions of Growth. Tabulated information and maps summarising risks to site allocations located within Flood Zones, including specific requirements for FRAs. 8. Flood risk from canals and reservoirs Summarises flood risk from canals and reservoirs. 9. Flood defences and “critical structures” Assessment of residual risk from flood defences, including future protection from climate change. Identification of possible „designated features‟ that affect flood risk. 10. Critical Drainage Areas Broad scale assessment to identify Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs) which, if developed, may significantly increase flood risk downstream or to the wider community. 11. Green Infrastructure and Water Framework Summarises the importance and role of Green Directive Infrastructure. Describes the purpose and objectives of the Water Framework Directive and provides an assessment of the current ecological status of watercourses within Charnwood Borough and implications for development. 12. Guidance for planners and developers Identifies the scope of the assessments that must be submitted in FRAs supporting applications for new development. 13. Summary and recommendations Reviews SFRA and its implications.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 4

1.4 Approach

1.4.1 General assessment of flood risk The NPPF Planning Practice Guidance retains key elements of Planning Policy Statement 25. The SFRA adopts the flood risk management hierarchy originally laid out in the PPS25 Practice Guide summarised in Figure 1-2. Figure 1-2: Flood Risk Management Hierarchy

Based on flood risk management hierarchy outlines in PPS25 Practice Guide4

This hierarchy underpins the risk based approach and must be the basis for making all decisions involving development and flood risk. When using the hierarchy, account should be taken of:  The nature of the flood risk (the source of the flooding)  The spatial distribution of the flood risk (the pathways and areas affected by flooding)  Climate change impacts, and  The degree of vulnerability of different types of development (the receptors) Site allocations should reflect the application of the Sequential Test using the maps produced for this Level 2 SFRA. The information in this SFRA should be used as evidence and, where necessary, reference should also be made to relevant evidence in the documents described in Section 5.2 of this report. The Flood Zone maps and flood risk information on other sources of flooding contained in this SFRA should be used where appropriate to apply the Sequential Test. Where other sustainability criteria outweigh flood risk issues, the decision making process should be transparent. Information from this SFRA should be used to justify decisions to allocate land in areas at high risk of flooding.

1.4.2 Technical assessment of flood hazards Flood risk within the Charnwood Borough has been assessed by using and enhancing computer models supplied by the Environment Agency, existing Environment Agency Flood Zone mapping, and additional modelling undertaken as part of this SFRA. In particular:  The Lower Soar hydraulic model, supplied by the Environment Agency  The River Wreake and tributaries hydraulic model, supplied by the Environment Agency  The Leicester Soar model, supplied by the Environment Agency  JFlow+ for all areas of flood zones not currently covered by a detailed hydraulic model, modelled as part of this study

1.5 Consultation The following parties (external to Charnwood Borough Council) have been consulted during the preparation of this version of the SFRA:  The Environment Agency  Severn Trent Water  Leicestershire County Council

4 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide (Department for Communities and Local Government, December 2009) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 5

2 The Planning Framework and Flood Risk Policy

2.1 Introduction The over arching aim of planning policy on development and flood risk is to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages of the planning process. The purpose of this section of the report is to highlight the main changes to the planning framework and flood risk responsibilities since the 2008 SFRA was published. These changes have been taken into account in preparing this SFRA update.

2.2 Flood Risk Regulations (2009) and Flood and Water Management Act (2010) The Flood Risk Regulations transpose the EU “Floods Directive” into UK law and place responsibility upon all Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) to manage local flood risk. Under the Regulations the Environment Agency is responsible for flooding from rivers, the sea and reservoirs with Lead Local Flood Authorities (in this instance Leicestershire County Council) being responsible for local and all other sources of flooding. Figure 2-1 sets out the requirements and timescales for implementing the requirements of the Directive. Figure 2-1: Flood Risk Regulation Requirements

Lead Local Flood Authorities prepared the PFRA reports in accordance with the regulations and Leicestershire County Council has published the document that covers the local authority area. The Environment Agency did not prepare a PFRA as they exercised an „exception‟ that was permitted under the Regulations. Having exercised this exception the Environment Agency will have to prepare Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps and Flood Risk Management Plans for rivers, the sea and reservoirs. The Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) received Royal Assent in April 2010. The FWMA aims to create a simpler and more effective means of managing the risk of flood and coastal erosion and implements Sir Michael Pitt‟s recommendations following his review of the 2007 floods. The FWMA also calls for the establishment of a SuDS Approving Body (SAB) to be set up in county, county borough or unitary local authorities. This requires SAB approval of drainage systems for new and redeveloped sites to be obtained before construction can commence. 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 6

Additionally the proposed drainage system must meet the new National Standards for design, construction, operation and maintenance. The SAB will be responsible for approving, adopting and maintaining drainage plans and SuDS schemes that meet the National Standards. The responsibilities of the SAB are likely to rest with the LLFA (in this case, Leicestershire County Council), although there is flexibility in the FWMA if it considered more effective for another body to take on the role.

2.2.1 Leicestershire Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment In the first instance, the regulations required Leicestershire County Council (as the LLFA) to prepare and publish a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) on past and future flood risk from local sources of flooding. The Regulations also require the LLFA to identify significant Flood Risk Areas. The PFRA reports on significant past and future flooding from all sources except Main River and Reservoir (covered by Environment Agency) and sub-standard performance of the adopted sewer network (under the remit of Severn Trent Water). Key outputs of the Leicestershire PFRA include:  Three past flooding events in Leicestershire were noted as having significant harmful consequences: o 1998 (in Loughborough) o 2002 and 2006 in Market Harborough  Proposed extension to the existing Indicative flood risk area for Leicestershire County identified by the Environment Agency. Part of the Charnwood Borough, at Birstall and Wanlip, is located within the Indicative Flood Risk Area.

2.3 Localism Act (2011) The Localism Act was given Royal Assent on 15 November 2011 with the purpose of moving the balance of decision making from central government back to councils, communities and individuals. Additionally Provision 110 of the Act places a duty to cooperate on local authorities in relation to planning of sustainable development. This duty to cooperate requires local authorities to “engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process by means of which development plan documents are prepared so far as relating to a strategic matter”5. The Localism Act also provides new rights to allow local communities to shape new development by coming together to prepare neighbourhood plans. This means local people can decide where new homes and businesses should go and what they should look like. Local planning authorities will be required to provide technical advice and support as neighbourhoods draw up their proposals.

2.4 National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was issued on 27 March 2012 to replace the previous documentation, as part of reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth. It replaces most of the Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). The NPPF is guidance for local planning authorities to help them prepare Local Plans. Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states “Local Plans should be supported by a strategic flood risk assessment and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources, taking account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood risk management bodies, such as Lead Local Flood Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards. Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change”1. Planning Practice Guidance on flood risk has been published alongside the NPPF2 and sets out how the policy should be implemented.

5 Localism Act 2011: Section 110. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/section/110 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 7

2.5 Surface Water Management Plans Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) outline the preferred surface water management strategy in a given location and are undertaken, when required, by LLFAs in consultation with key local partners who are responsible for surface water management and drainage in their area. SWMPs establish a long-term action plan to manage surface water in an area and should influence future capital investment, drainage maintenance, public engagement and understanding, land-use planning, emergency planning and future developments. At the time of the publication of this SFRA update, no SWMP has been published that covers the Charnwood Borough, although it is understood that one is currently being prepared. As part of this SFRA update, an assessment has been prepared to identify Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs). The CDAs can provide a good indication of areas that, if developed, may significantly increase flood risk downstream or to the wider community by the generation of increased surface runoff. The identification of CDAs will aid the development of SWMPs by highlighting areas with surface water sewer flooding issues.

2.6 Association of British Insurers Guidance on Insurance and Planning in Flood Risk Areas for Local Planning Authorities in England The Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the National Flood Forum have published guidance for local authorities on planning in flood risk areas. The guidance aims to help local authorities in England when producing local plans and dealing with planning applications in flood risk areas. The guidance complements the National Planning Policy Framework. The key recommendations from the guidance are6:  Ensure strong relationships with technical experts on flood risk  Consider flooding from all sources, taking account of climate change  Take potential impacts on drainage infrastructure seriously  Ensure that flood risk is mitigated to acceptable levels for proposed developments  Make sure Local Plans take account of all relevant costs and are regularly reviewed

2.7 Implications for Charnwood Borough The new and emerging responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act and the Flood Risk Regulations are summarised in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Roles and Responsibilities in Leicestershire

Risk Management Authority Strategic Level Operational Level (RMA) Main rivers, reservoirs  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (per River Basin District)1 National Statutory Strategy  Identify Significant Flood Risk Area1 Environment Agency Reporting and supervision  Flood Risk and Hazard (overview role) Maps  Flood Risk Management Plan Enforcement authority for Reservoirs Act 1975

6 Guidance on Insurance and Planning in Flood Risk Areas for Local Planning Authorities in England (Association of British Insurers and National Flood Forum, April 2012) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 8

Risk Management Authority Strategic Level Operational Level (RMA) Surface water, groundwater, ordinary watercourse, other sources of flooding  Prepare and publish a Input to national strategy. PFRA Lead Local Flood Authority  Identify Flood Risk Areas (Leicestershire County Council) Formulate and implement local  Prepare Flood Hazard and flood risk management strategy. Flood Risk Maps  Prepare Flood Risk Management Plans SuDS Approval Body Input to National and Local Authority Plans and Strategy Borough Councils (e.g. Local Development  Ordinary watercourse (Charnwood Borough Council) Framework Documents)

 Charnwood Borough Plan 1 – Environment Agency did not prepare a PFRA; instead they submitted an exception permitted under the Regulations

Figure 2-2 shows the key strategic planning links for flood risk and associated documents. It shows how the Flood Risk Regulations and Flood and Water Management Act, in conjunction with the Localism Act‟s “duty to cooperate”, introduce a wider requirement for the exchange of information and the preparation of strategies and management plans. SFRAs contain information that should be referred to in responding to the Flood Risk Regulations and the formulation of local flood risk management strategies and plans. SFRAs are also linked to the preparation of Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs), Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs), Surface Water management plans (SWMPs) and water cycle strategies (WCSs).

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 9

Figure 2-2: Strategic planning links and key documents for flood risk

EU EU “Floods” Directive

National Flood and Water Management Planning Acts Act Flood Risk NPPF Statutory National Strategy for Regulations Flood Risk and Coastal Erosion Risk Management

District / Catchment Catchment Flood Preliminary Flood Management Plan Risk Assessment * can be (PFRA) & significant harmonised flood risk areas† with FWMA Shoreline requirements Management Plan Flood Risk and Flood Hazard Mapping Statutory Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (Local) Flood Risk Management Plan*

Surface Water Local Management Plan* * * also influenced by Strategic Flood requirements Local Development Framework (Plan) Risk of the River Including: Assessment Basin Management  Urban Extensions SPD; Plan  Infrastructure Delivery Plan;  Green Infrastructure Plan;  Emergency planning; and Water Cycle  Sustainability, climate change & Strategy** environment

Site Planning Flood Risk Applications Assessments

Planning Decisions

Legend: Responsibilities are indicated using colour coding as follows European National Local Planning EA/LLFA/Maritime Developer Union Government Authority Local Authorities

† See Table 2-1 for roles and responsibilities for preparation of information

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 10

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 11

3 Understanding flood risk in Charnwood Borough

3.1 Historic flooding The previous Charnwood SFRA published in 2008 included an assessment of historic flooding in the borough. To summarise, it describes how Charnwood has a long history of flood events, including several events in recent history which saw properties inundated throughout the Borough. Significant flood events include Easter 1998 and January 1999 (principally along the River Soar and River Wreake). Although Leicestershire was not badly affected by the extreme rainfall which caused flooding across large parts of the UK during the summer of 2007, notable flooding due to overland flow occurred in the settlements around Charnwood Forest in the west of the Borough. Since the publication of the 2008 SFRA there have been a number of flood events in the Borough including June and November 2012. As described in Section 2.2.1, Leicestershire County Council was required to assess past flooding as part of the Leicestershire PFRA. As part of this assessment information was gathered from a number of sources including:  District and Borough Councils  Key interviews  Strategic Flood Risk Assessments  The Local Resilience Forum  Partner organisations, including the Environment Agency, Canal and River Trust (formally British Waterways), Severn Trent Water, Natural England, Network Rail and Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Services.

3.2 Topography, hydrology, geology and soils The Charnwood Borough encompasses an area of approximately 279km2. The largest urban area in the Borough is the town of Loughborough. There are also a number of service centres (including Anstey, Barrow upon Soar, Mountsorrel, Quorn, Rothley, Sileby and Syston), villages and hamlets.

3.2.1 Topography There are three distinct topographic regions within the Charnwood Borough; the raised area of Charnwood Forest in the west, the central low-lying south-north floodplain of the River Soar, and the raised area of the Wolds to the east7. Elevations range from 245m AOD in the west to 44m AOD in the River Soar floodplain to 150m AOD in the Wolds to the east.

3.2.2 Geology and soils The geology of a catchment can be an important influencing factor on the way that a catchment responds to rainfall due to variations in permeability of the strata. The 2008 Charnwood SFRA describes the geology in west of the Charnwood Borough around Charnwood Forest as harder Precambrian and Ordovician metamorphic/igneous geology, generally without boulder clay drift. In the east, much of the Borough is underlain by Triassic Mercia Mudstone with intermittent layers of gypsum, the Tea-Green Marl, Shales, Hydraulic Limestone and Lias Clays, covered with a thick layer of Pleistocene glacial boulder clay drift. Along the Soar Valley Triassic Mercia Mudstone is overlain with alluvium with gravel terrace deposits along the valley sides. The moderate to slowly permeable geology of the Charnwood Borough is likely to produce high percentage runoff.

7 Charnwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report (Entec, 2008) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 12

Figure 3-1: Charnwood Borough: topography

3.2.3 Hydrology The Charnwood Borough receives between 625 and 750mm of rain on average a year. Rainfall is highest over the hills of Charnwood Forest in the west and decreases eastwards across the Borough7. Watercourses draining Charnwood Forest tend to be faster responding than the watercourses draining the Wolds. The principal watercourse flowing through the Borough is the River Soar, with a number of smaller tributaries including the River Wreake, Rothley Brook and Black Brook. The Grand Union Canal also runs through the Borough. A summary of the principal watercourses in Charnwood Borough are provided in Table 3-1 and their locations, as well as smaller drains and watercourses, are provided in Appendix J. There are a number of reservoirs in the Charnwood Borough including Swithland, Cropston and Black Brook which provide storage for public water supply, and Nanpatan. Further details of reservoirs within the Borough as well as the flood risk posed by reservoirs located outside the Borough are provided in Section 8.3.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 13

Table 3-1: Watercourses in Charnwood Borough*

KEY MR Main River OW Ordinary Watercourse EA Environment Agency CBC Charnwood Borough Council

River Classification Responsibility Description

Flows northwards from its source in south Leicestershire / north Warwickshire to its confluence with the River Trent. It flows through a predominantly rural catchment before passing through River Soar MR EA urban Leicester where is receives urban runoff. It has a number of major tributaries including the River Wreake and Rothley Brook that join the River Soar at Charnwood. Flows south from its source at Waltham in the Wolds before flowing west through Melton and River Wreake MR EA Charnwood to its confluence with the River Soar. Flows east from its source in Charnwood Forest through north-west Leicestershire into Charnwood Rothley Brook MR EA to its confluence with the River Soar. Black Brook (inc. Grace Dieu Flows east from its source in Charnwood Forest through north-west Leicestershire into Charnwood MR EA Brook) to its confluence with the River Soar. Flows east from its source in Charnwood Forest through Loughborough to its confluence with the Burleigh Brook (inc. MR/OW EA/CBC River Soar. The lower catchment is predominantly urbanised and a syphon structure takes the Shortcliffe Brook) Brook underneath the Grand Union Canal. Flows east from its source in Charnwood Forest through Loughborough to its confluence with the Wood Brook MR/OW EA/CBC River Soar. The lower catchment is predominantly urbanised and two syphon structures takes the Brook underneath the Grand Union Canal. Source is in Charnwood Forest. There are three main tributaries; the River Lin flows into Cropston Quorn Brook (inc. Poultney Reservoir then, with the Swithland Brook, into Swithland Reservoir. The Poultney Brook joins the and Swithland Brooks and MR/OW EA/CBC Quorn Brook before the watercourse flows into the River Soar. There are additional reservoirs in the River Lin) Quorn. Sic Brook OW CBC Drains east through Mountsorrel into the River Soar Anstey, Leicester Road MR EA Watercourse culverted under „The Nook‟ Culvert Drains west through Thurmaston. The catchment is predominantly urban and the watercourse is Thurmaston Dyke OW CBC culverted in places. Flows north west from its source in Market Harborough through Charnwood to its confluence with Barkby Brook MR/OW EA/CBC the River Wreake.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 14

River Classification Responsibility Description Quenilborough Brook (inc. Flows north west from its source in Market Harborough / Melton through Charnwood to its Gaddesby Brook and Parish MR/OW EA/CBC confluence with the River Wreake. Dyke) Flows north west from its source in Melton through Charnwood to its confluence with the River Rearsby Brook MR/OW EA/CBC Wreake. Thrussington Brook MR/OW EA/CBC Drains south through Thrussington to the River Wreake Cossington Brook and Platts OW CBC Flows south west through Cossington to its confluence with the River Soar. Lane Culvert Sileby Brook MR/OW EA/CBC Flows south west through Sileby to its confluence with the River Soar. Barrow Brook OW CBC Flows south west to its confluence with the River Soar. Fishpool Brook MR/OW EA/CBC Flows south west through Barrow Upon Soar to its confluence with the River Soar. Walton, Burton Brook and un-named watercourse OW CBC Flows west to its confluence with the River Soar. between Hoton and the Soar Kings Brook and River MR/OW EA/CBC Flows west to its confluence with the River Soar Mantle Canal and River Grand Union Canal Canal Canal passes northwards through the centre of Charnwood and is interlinked with the River Soar. Trust Melton Brook MR/OW EA/CBC Flows in a westerly direction to its confluence with the River Soar Located to east of Loughborough and split into two parts. Both flow north flowing to the Hermitage Brook OW EA/CBC confluence with the River Soar Willow Brook MR EA/CBC Flows north to its confluence with the River Soar Grammar School Brook MR EA/CBC Flows east to its confluence with the Grand Union Canal Ox Brook OW EA/CBC Flows south to its confluence with the River Wreake. Oxley Gutter OW EA/CBC Flows north to its confluence with the Black Brook. * Reproduced from Table 4.1 in Charnwood Borough Council SFRA (2008)

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 15

3.3 Fluvial flood risk The watercourses in the Borough pose a potential risk to development, particularly near the extensive flood plain of the River Soar and River Wreake. Risk is also posed by smaller watercourses such as the Black Brook and Wood Brook. Flooding may not be from one watercourse alone; there are a number of interactions, particularly between the River Soar, Grand Union Canal and the Wood Brook in the urban area of Loughborough. In addition to the flood risk shown in the flood risk mapping, there are a number of small watercourses and field drains which may pose a risk to development. The extent of these smaller watercourses can be seen in Appendix J. Flood Zone mapping is only available for watercourses with a catchment area greater than 3km2. Therefore whilst these smaller watercourses may not be shown as having flood risk on any flood risk mapping, it does not necessarily mean there is no flood risk. Developers will have to assess the risk from these smaller watercourses as part of a detailed, site specific, flood risk assessment.

3.4 Flood defences, assets and structures The 2008 SFRA provided a thorough description of existing flood defences within Charnwood Borough.

3.4.1 Flood Alleviation Schemes A number of flood alleviation schemes have been investigated and commissioned in flood risk hotspots within Charnwood over the last 30-years The River Soar Flood Alleviation Scheme in the 1980-1990s included a series of works upstream of Quorn which successfully reduced flood risk. Another scheme was constructed in 2001 on the River Wreake. The Melton Mowbray Flood Alleviation Scheme is located upstream of Melton Mowbray and consists of an online storage facility that provides a reduction in flooding on the River Wreake as far down as its confluence with the River Soar. The scheme comprises a 470m long earth embankment 5m above the floodplain. Floodwaters are controlled by an automatic gate which is operated based on flood levels from local gauging stations. The system has been designed to attenuate flows from the Wreake for up to 1 in 100 year flows down to a 1 in 5 year flow. As part of the River Soar FRMS the Melton Mowbray flood alleviation scheme was shown for a 100-year flood to have a 40% reduction in the amount of properties flooded downstream and the cost of flood damage. The biggest reductions were found in the vicinity of Syston.

3.4.2 Summary A high level review of formal flood defences was carried out for this SFRA including an assessment of their condition. Details of the flood defences, their standard of protection and condition were provided by the Environment Agency for the purpose of preparing this assessment. A summary of the grading system used by the Environment Agency is provided in Table 3-2. This information is supplemented with a summary of the formal flood defences in Charnwood Borough as shown in Appendix I. Table 3-2: Defence asset condition rating Grade Rating Description 1 Very Good Cosmetic defects that will have no effect on performance. Minor defects that will not reduce the overall performance of the 2 Good assets. 3 Fair Defects that could reduce performance of assets. Defects that would significantly reduce the performance of the 4 Poor asset. Further investigation required 5 Very Poor Severe defects resulting in complete performance failure. Source: Condition Assessment Manual – Environment Agency 2006

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 16

The majority of flood defences are located around five main locations. These locations are the following:  Loughborough  East of Loughborough  Quorn  Rothley  Birstall There are also a number of flood defences along smaller watercourses within the Borough. Details of these are provided in Appendix I. The flood defences within urban areas such as Loughborough, Quorn, Rothley and Thurmaston mainly have a Standard of Protection (SoP) of 100-years (i.e. provide protection for floods of magnitude of 1% AEP). Large stretches of defences in more rural locations have a SoP of 10- years (i.e. provide protection for floods of 10% AEP). Further details of the flood defences at the five locations listed above are summarised on the following pages

North Loughborough Figure 3-2: North Loughborough Flood Defences

Figure 3-2 shows that the majority of the flood defences in Loughborough are situated along the River Soar and the Black Brook. The majority of the defences are embankments with the exception of a flood wall located to the north of the industrial estate in northern Loughborough. The majority of the defences are classed as either “good” or “fair” condition with only one small embankment classed as “poor” condition in the area directly north of the industrial estate. The standard of the protection of defences located along the Black Brook and along the northern boundary of the industrial estate are believed to be 100-years. Flood embankments along the River Soar north of Loughborough have a standard of protection of 10-years.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 17

East Loughborough Figure 3-3: East Loughborough Flood Defences

Figure 3-3 shows that the majority of the flood defences east of Loughborough are located along the River Soar. All of the defences in this area are embankments and are deemed to be either “good” or “fair” condition according to Environment Agency records. The standard of protection of the majority of the embankments is 10-years. The flood embankment located south of the railway line has a standard of protection of 100-years.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 18

Quorn Figure 3-4 shows a concentration of flood defences along the River Soar where it flows past Quorn. The flood defences are a mixture of flood walls and embankments. The majority of the flood walls are situated within the urban areas of Quorn and are classed as being either “good” or “fair” condition according to Environment Agency records. The flood embankments are mainly situated along the right bank, upstream of Quorn. The condition of these embankments is classed as “fair”. The standard of protection for the flood defences within Quorn is 100-years with the embankments along the River Soar upstream of Quorn having a standard of protection of 10-years.

Figure 3-4: Quorn Flood Defences

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 19

Rothley Figure 3-5: Rothley Flood Defences

Figure 3-5 shows that there are a mixture of flood walls and flood embankments as the Rothley Brook flows through Rothley. These defences are classed as being in “good” or “fair” condition. The standard of protection for all these flood defences is 100-years.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 20

Birstall Figure 3-6: Birstall Flood Defences

Figure 3-6 has only one defence located on the right bank of the River Soar. This defence is an embankment, and a short section of wall, which according to the Environment Agency is in a “Good” condition. The standard of protection of these flood defences is 100-years.

3.5 Surface water flooding Flooding from surface water runoff is usually caused by intense rainfall that may only last a few hours and usually occurs in lower lying areas, often where the drainage system is unable to cope with the volume of water. Surface water flooding problems are inextricably linked to issues of poor drainage, or drainage blockage by debris, and sewer flooding. The updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW) predominantly follows topographical flow paths of existing watercourses or dry valleys with some isolated ponding located in low lying areas. If the uFMfSW indicates a risk to a site allocation or settlement this has been discussed in further detail in Section 10. It should be noted that, because of its broad-scale nature, wherever possible these mapped outlines should be used in conjunction with other sources of local flooding information to confirm the presence of a surface water risk. The geology of the Charnwood Borough has large areas underlain with clay deposits. Extensive areas of clay and undulating topography results in catchments the Borough responding quickly to rainfall events and therefore increases the risk of surface water flooding. In addition, areas with an abundance of impervious surfaces may also be at risk of surface water flooding, especially when local intense rainstorms occur. Any site-specific FRA would need to adequately assess the risk from surface water flooding; not only at the site but to also ensure there is not an increased risk of flooding to areas downstream. The 2008 Charnwood Borough SFRA describes how the Charnwood area had sustained flooding from surface water in Loughborough in 1998 during periods of heavy rainfall. Also in the summer of 2007 surface water flooding affects parts of Swithland, Woodhouse Eaves, Rothley, Nanpantan and Newton Linford. Although flood risk from surface water is not deemed to be a constraint to future development, mitigation measures should be implemented especially with new developments. Further guidance for planners and developers is provided in Section 12.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 21

The uFMfSW is provided in Appendix F. The uFMfSW shows the flooding that takes place from the 'surface runoff' generated by rainwater (including snow and other precipitation) which: (a) is on the surface of the ground (whether or not it is moving), and (b) has not yet entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer. The updated Flood Map for Surface Water will pick out natural drainage channels, low areas in the floodplain, and flow paths between buildings, but it will only indicate flooding caused by local rainfall.

3.6 Groundwater flooding In comparison to fluvial flooding, current understanding of the risks posed by groundwater flooding is limited and mapping of flood risk from groundwater sources is in its infancy. There is currently no one organisation with responsibility to respond to groundwater flooding, therefore the risks and mechanisms of groundwater flooding are poorly reported. However, under the Flood and Water management Act (2010), LLFAs have powers to undertake risk management functions in relation to groundwater flood risk. Groundwater level monitoring records are available for areas on Major Aquifers. However, for lower lying valley areas, which can be susceptible to groundwater flooding caused by a high water table in mudstones, clays and superficial alluvial deposits, very few records are available. The 2008 Charnwood Borough SFRA describes how, due to the moderate or slowly permeable geology of the area, it is more likely that there will be higher percentages of runoff and therefore limited potential for ground water flood risk problems. The Areas Susceptible to Ground Water Flooding (AStGWf) map is provided in Appendix G. The AStGWf is a strategic scale map showing groundwater flood areas on a 1km square grid. The data was produced to annotate indicative Flood Risk Areas for PRFA studies and allow the LLFAs to determine whether there may be a risk of flooding from groundwater. The map indicates the proportion of each 1km grid square which geological and hydrogeological condition show that groundwater might emerge. It does not show the likelihood of groundwater flooding occurring. The dataset covers a large area of land, and only isolated locations within the overall susceptible area are actually likely to suffer the consequences of groundwater flooding. The AStGWf data should be used only in combination with other information, for example local data or historic data. It should not be used as sole evidence for any specific flood risk management, land use planning or other decisions at any scale. The data can however help to identify areas for assessment at a local scale where finer resolution datasets exist

3.7 Flooding from sewers Sewer flooding occurs when intense rainfall overloads the sewer system capacity (surface water, foul or combined), and/or when sewers cannot discharge properly to watercourses due to high water levels. Sewer flooding can also be caused when problems such as blockages, collapses or equipment failure occur in the sewerage system. Infiltration, entry of soil or groundwater into the sewer system via faults within the fabric of the sewerage system, is another cause of sewer flooding. Infiltration is often related to shallow groundwater, and may cause high flows for prolonged periods of time. Since 1980, the Sewers for Adoption guidelines have meant that most new surface water sewers have been designed to have capacity for a rainfall event with a 1 in 30 chance of occurring in any given year, although until recently this did not apply to smaller private systems. This means that, even where sewers are built to current specification, they are likely to be overwhelmed by larger events of the magnitude often considered when looking at river or surface water flooding (e.g. a 1 in 100 chance of occurring in a given year). Existing sewers can also become overloaded as new development adds to their catchment, or due to incremental increases in roofed and paved surfaces at the individual property scale (urban creep). Sewer flooding is therefore a problem that could occur in many locations across the Borough. According to Severn Trent Water‟s DG5 register, areas including Loughborough, Birstall, Shepshed and Rothley are prone to sewer flooding.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 22

3.8 Flooding from reservoirs, canals and other artificial sources

3.8.1 Reservoirs Within the Charnwood Borough boundary there are a number of large reservoirs including:  Black Brook reservoir  Cropston and Swithland Reservoir  Nanpantan Reservoir. For all large storage structures, such as reservoirs, the Reservoirs Act 1975 requires the regular inspection by competent persons to assess the likelihood of failure. Provided that the inspections are carried out regularly and to a high standard, the likelihood of a reservoir failure is considered minimal. Further information on flood risk from reservoirs can be found in Section 8.4.

3.8.2 Canals There is only one canal in the Charnwood Borough. The Grand Union Canal flows through the Charnwood Borough from north to south and follows the route of the River Soar. For large parts of the reach through the Charnwood Borough the Grand Union Canal is indistinguishable from the River Soar, branching off to form separate reaches at only a few locations. Along the course of the Grand Union Canal there are numerous locations where watercourses either run adjacent or underneath the canal. Therefore understanding the interactions of the canal and main rivers are integral to understanding flood risk in the area. At present canals do not have a level of service for flood recurrence (i.e. there is no requirement for canals to be used in flood mitigation), although the Canal and River Trust, as part of its function, will endeavour to maintain water levels to control the risk of flooding from canals to adjacent properties. It is important, however, that any development proposed adjacent to a canal be investigated on an individual basis regarding flooding issues and should be considered as part of any FRA Further information on flood risk from canals can be found in Section 8.2.

3.9 The impact of climate change

3.9.1 Fluvial flooding Climate change mapping has been provided for all watercourses in the Charnwood Borough currently shown at risk in the Environment Agency‟s Flood Zones. The effect tends to be a noticeable increase in the mapped flood extent. Smaller watercourses in Charnwood (e.g. Black Brook) tend to be in areas of steeper topography with quite confined floodplains, and in these cases increases in flow do not result in a significant increase in flood extent. However, climate change does not just affect the extent of flooding. It is important to remember that even where extent does not significantly increase; flooding is likely to become more frequent under a climate change scenario. For example, what is currently an event with a 2% probability of occurring in any one year, may increase to say a 5% probability under climate change. The impact of an event with a given probability is also likely to become more severe. For example depths, velocities, hazard and therefore risk to people will increase. Although qualitative statements can be made as to whether extreme events are likely to increase or decrease over the UK in the future, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of these changes locally. Further details regarding the uncertainties in predicting the impacts of climate change can be found in  Environment Agency (2011) Adapting to Climate Change: Advice for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Authorities. September 2011  UK Climate Projections (UKCP09)

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 23

3.9.2 Surface Water Climate change is predicted to increase rainfall intensity in the future by up to 30%. This will increase the likelihood and frequency of surface water flooding, particularly in impermeable urban areas, and areas that are already susceptible such as Loughborough and Rothley.

3.9.3 Groundwater The effect of climate change on groundwater flooding problems, and those watercourses where groundwater has a large influence on winter flood flows is more uncertain. Milder wetter winters may increase the frequency of groundwater flooding incidents in areas that are already susceptible, but warmer drier summers may counteract this effect by drawing down groundwater levels more during the summer months.

3.10 Catchment Flood Management Plans Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) are a high-level strategic plan providing an overview of flood risk across each river catchment. The Environment Agency use CFMPs to work with other key-decision makers to identify and agree long-term policies for sustainable flood risk management. There are six pre-defined national policies provided in the CFMP guidance and these are applied to specific locations through the identification of „Policy Units‟. These policies are intended to cover the full range of long term flood risk management options in the catchment that can be applied to different locations. The six national policies are: 5. No active intervention (including flood warning and maintenance). Continue to monitor and advise 6. Reducing existing flood risk management actions (accepting that flood risk will increase over time). 7. Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline). 8. Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk (responding to the potential increases in risk from urban development, land use change and climate change). 9. Take action to reduce flood risk (now and/or in the future) 10. Take action with others to store water or manage run-off in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits, locally or elsewhere in the catchment.

3.10.1 River Trent CFMP The Charnwood Borough is covered by the River Trent CFMP. The Policy Units of importance to Charnwood Borough are Policy Units 8 and 9. Policy Unit 8 (Rural Leicestershire): within this policy unit the CFMP states that Policy 6 applies. As part of this SFRA update, an assessment of green infrastructure has been undertaken which will help support this policy. Policy Unit 9 (Upper Soar and Upper Anker): within this policy unit the CFMP states that Policy 4 applies. The SFRA will help support this policy by aiding the Council to make informed decisions about the location of future development, as well as identifying where future flood risk management measures may be required.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 24

3.11 Emergency planning in the Borough

3.11.1 Flood Warning Areas Flood Alerts are used to warn people of the possibility of flooding and encourage them to be alert, stay vigilant and make early preparations. It is issued earlier than a flood warning, to give customers advice notice of the possibility of flooding, but before we are fully confident that flooding in Flood Warning Areas is expected.

Flood Warnings warn people of expected flooding and encourage them to take action to protect themselves and their property.

Severe Flood Warnings warn people of expected severe flooding where there is a significant threat to life.

Warnings no longer in force Informs people that river or sea conditions begin to return to normal and no further flooding is expected in the area. People should remain careful as flood water may still be around for several days.

There are currently five Flood Alert Areas and 21 Flood Warning Areas (FWAs) covering all, or part of, the Charnwood Borough. These are summarised in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4. Maps showing the coverage of each FWA are provided in Appendix H.

3.11.2 Multi-agency Flood Response Plan The 2012 Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland Local Resilience Forum (LLR LRF) Multi-agency Flood Plan8 covers the Charnwood Borough. The flood response plan is an „over-arching‟ plan based on the identified risk of flooding within the LLR LRF area‟. It sets out arrangements and provides information for a multi-agency response to a flood or potential flooding incidents affecting the LLR LRF area. It aims to facilitate effective response to the threat of flooding by initiating a multi-agency response at the earliest possible stage. It sets out the roles and responsibilities of Category 1 and 2 responders but does not detail the operational responses of individual organisations. The response plan also informs the public by providing information on what to do before, during and after a flood, and how to prepare property for flooding. The following „At Risk‟ communities and community response plans in the Charnwood Borough have been identified in the Response Plan.  Anstey  Ratcliffe On The Wreake  Barrow on Soar  Rothley  Birstall  Sileby  Cossington  Syston  Cotes  Thorpe Acre  Hathern  Thrussington  Loughborough  Thurmaston  Mountsorrel  Wanlip  Quorn

The information provided is based on the August 2012 LLR LRF Flood Plan. The next scheduled update of the plan is due in August 2014.

8 LRF Multi-agency Flood Plan (Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland Local Resilience Forum, August 2012) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 25

Table 3-3: Flood Alert coverage Flood Alert Code Flood Alert Name Watercourse Coverage

Lower River Soar in Leicestershire including tributaries from Sharnford to the 034WAF402 Upper Soar Catchment River Soar River Wreake confluence at Syston 034WAF403 Rothley Brook in Leicestershire Rothley Brook Rothley Brook and tributaries from Botcheston to the River Soar at Rothley 034WAF404 River Wreake in Leicestershire River Wreake River Wreake and tributaries from Stapleford to the River Soar at Syston Black Brook, Wood Brook, Burleigh Brook, Grace Dieu Brook and other urban 034WAF426 Loughborough Urban Watercourses Black Brook watercourses in Loughborough Lower River Soar in Leicestershire including tributaries from Cossington to 034WAF428 Lower River Soar in Leicestershire River Soar Redhill at the River Trent

Table 3-4: Flood Warning Coverage Flood Warning Flood Warning Name Watercourse Coverage Code

034FWFSOBARRSOAR River Soar at Barrow on Soar River Soar Barrow on Soar 034FWFSOBIRSWANP River Soar at Birstall and Wanlip River Soar Birstall, Wanlip and isolated properties near Syston 034FWFSOCOSSNGTN River Soar at Cossington village, Mill and Grange River Soar Cossington village, Mill and Grange 034FWFSOCOTES River Soar at Cotes and Loughborough Moors River Soar Cotes and Loughborough Moors 034FWFSOLOUGHBRH River Soar at Loughborough River Soar Loughborough 034FWFSOMNTSORRL River Soar at Mountsorrel River Soar Mountsorrel River Soar at Moor Lane in Normanton on Soar & Hathern 034FWFSONORMOOR Sports Ground River Soar Moor Lane in Normanton on Soar and Hathern Sports Ground 034FWFSONORMSOAR River Soar at Normanton on Soar River Soar Normanton on Soar including Hathern Sports Ground area 034FWFSOQUORN River Soar at Quorn River Soar Quorn 034FWFSORUSHMEAD River Soar at Rushey Mead River Soar Rushey Mead 034FWFSOSILEBY River Soar at Sileby River Soar Sileby 034FWFSOTHURMSTN River Soar at Thurmaston River Soar Thurmaston 034FWFSOZOUCH River Soar at Zouch Island River Soar Zouch Island 034FWFWRMILLS River Wreake for mills at Hoby, Thrussington and Ratcliffe River Wreake Frisby-on-the-Wreake 034FWFWRRATHRUSS River Wreake at Thrussington and Ratcliffe on the Wreake River Wreake Mills at Hoby, Thrussington and Ratcliffe 034FWFWRRIVSYST River Wreake for riverside properties near Syston River Wreake Thrussington and Ratcliffe on the Wreake 034FWFWRSYSTON River Wreake at Syston River Wreake Riverside properties near Syston 034FWFBBTHORACRE Black Brook at Thorpe Acre Black Brook Thorpe Acre 034FWFROGLENFLD Rothley Brook at Glenfield and Anstey Rothley Brook Glenfield and Anstey 034FWFROROTHLEY Rothley Brook at Rothley Rothley Brook Rothley 034FWFWOLOUGHB Wood Brook at Loughborough Wood Brook Loughborough

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 26

4 How flood risk is assessed

4.1 Definitions

4.1.1 Flood Section1 (subsection 1) of the FWMA defines a flood as: ‘any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water’. Section1 (subsection 2) states „it does not matter for the purposes of subsection (1) whether a flood is caused by – (a) Heavy rainfall (b) A river overflowing or its banks being breached (c) A dam overflowing or being breached (d) Tidal waters (e) Groundwater, or (f) Anything else (including any combination of factors). Note: Source does not include the following – flood from any part of a sewerage system, unless caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater, entering or affecting the system, or a flood caused by a burst water main.

4.1.2 Flood Risk Section 3(subsection 1) of the FWMA defined flood risk as: ‘a risk in respect of an occurrence assessed and expressed (as for insurance and scientific purposes) as a combination of the probability of the occurrence with its potential consequences.’ Thus it is possible to define flood risk as: Flood Risk = (Probability of a flood) x (Scale of the Consequences)

On that basis it is useful to express the definition as follows:

Consequences

Flood Flood Receptor Receptor Probability X Hazard X Presence X Vulnerability Risk = Magnitude

Using this definition it can be seen that  Increasing the probability or chance of a flood being experienced increases the flood risk. In situations where the probability of a flood being experienced increases gradually over time, for example due to the effects of climate change, then the severity of the flood risk will increase (flooding becomes more frequent or has increased effect).  The scale of the consequences can increase the flood risk. o Flood Hazard Magnitude: If the direct hazard posed by the depth of flooding, velocity of flow, the speed of onset, rate of risk in flood water or duration of inundation is increased, then the consequences of flooding, and therefore risk, is increased. o Receptor presence: The consequences of a flood will be increased if there are more receptors affected, for example with an increase in extent or frequency of flooding. Additionally, if there is new development that increases the probability of flooding (for example, increase in volume of runoff due to increased 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 27

impermeable surfaces) or increased density of infrastructure then consequences will also be increased. o Receptor vulnerability: If the vulnerability of the people, property or infrastructure is increased then the consequences are increased. For example, old or young people are more vulnerable if there is a flood.

4.2 Using SFRA risk information This SFRA contains information that can be used at strategic, operational and tactical levels as shown by Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: Uses of SFRA information

Assess Avoid or Control or Tactical response to Post event recovery risk reduce risk mitigate risk flood event support

Before a flood During a flood After a flood

The SFRA will aid in the preparation of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy prepared by the Lead Local Flood Authority (Leicestershire County Council). The assessment of flood risk in the SFRA is primarily based on the following three types of information

4.2.1 Flood Zones The SFRA includes maps that show the flood zones. These zones describe the land that would flood if there were no defences present. The NPPF Guidance identifies the following Flood Zones and these are used in the Charnwood SFRA, see Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1.

Figure 4-2: Flood Zone definition

FLOODZONE 1 FLOOD ZONE 3b

FLOODZONE 1

FLOODZONE 2 FLOODZONE 2

FLOODZONE 3a FLOODZONE 3a

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 28

Table 4-1: Flood Zone descriptions

Probability Description This zone comprises land assessed as having a less Zone 1 Low than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year (<0.1%). This zone comprises land assessed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of Zone 2 Medium river flooding (0.1% - 1%) or between 1 in 200 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of sea flooding (0.1% – 0.5%) in any year. This zone comprises land assessed as having a greater than 1 in 100 annual probability of river Zone 3a High flooding (>1.0%) or a greater than 1 in 200 annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year. This zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. SFRAs should identify this Flood Zone (land which would flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20 (5%) or greater in any year or is Zone 3b Function Floodplain designed to flood in an extreme (0.1%) flood, or at another probability to be agreed between the LPA and the Environment Agency, including water conveyance routes.

The preference when allocating land is, whenever possible, to place all new development on land in Zone 1. Since the Zones identify land that is not reliant on flood defences, placing development on Zone 1 land means that in future there is no commitment to spending money on flood banks or flood alleviation measures and not committing future generations to costly long term expenditure that would become increasingly unsustainable as the effects of climate change increase. However, the runoff from development on Zone 1 land can potentially cause an increase in the probability of flooding to existing downstream development. Information in the SFRA should be used to address this issue.

4.2.2 Actual Flood Risk If it has not been possible for all future development to be situated in Zone 1 then a more detailed assessment is needed to understand the implications of locating proposed development in Zones 2 or 3. This is accomplished by considering information on the “actual risk” of flooding. The assessment of actual risk takes account of the presence of flood defences and provides a picture of the safety of existing and proposed development. It should be understood that the standard of protection afforded by flood defences is not constant and it is presumed that the required minimum standards for new development are:  Residential development should be protected against flooding with an annual probability of river flooding of 1% in any year; and  Residential development should be protected against flooding with an annual probability of tidal (sea) flooding of 0.5% in any year.

The assessment of the actual risk should take the following issues into account:  The level of protection afforded by existing defences might be less than the appropriate standards and hence may need to be improved if further growth is contemplated;  The flood risk management policy for the defences will provide information on the level of future commitment to maintain existing standards of protection. If there is a conflict between the proposed level of commitment and the future needs to support growth then it will be a priority for the Flood Risk Management Strategy to be reviewed;  The standard of safety must be maintained for the intended lifetime of the development (assumed to be 100 years for residential development). Over time the effects of climate 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 29

change will erode the present day standard of protection afforded by defences and so commitment is needed to invest in the maintenance and upgrade of defences if the present day levels of protection are to be maintained; and  The assessment of actual risk can include consideration of the magnitude of the hazard posed by flooding. By understanding the depth, velocity, speed of onset and rate of rise of floodwater it is possible to assess the level of hazard posed by flood events from the respective sources. This assessment will be needed in circumstances where consideration is given to the mitigation of the consequences of flooding or where it is proposed to place lower vulnerability development in areas that are at risk from inundation. For information on defences reference should be made to the Environment Agency's Asset Information Management System (AIMS) which contains details on the standard of protection of defences.

4.2.3 Residual Risk The residual risk refers to the risks that remain in circumstances where measures have been taken to alleviate flooding. It is important that these risks are quantified to confirm that the consequences can be safely managed. The residual risk can be:  The effects of a flood with a magnitude greater than that for which the defences or management measures have been designed to alleviate. This can result in over topping of flood banks, failure of flood gates to cope with the level of flow or failure of pumping systems to cope with the incoming discharges; or  Failure of the defences or flood risk management measures to perform their intended duty. This could be breach failure of flood embankments, failure of flood gates to operate in the intended manner or failure of pumping stations. The assessment of residual risk demands that attention be given to the vulnerability of the receptors and the response to managing the resultant flood emergency. In this instance attention should be paid to the characteristics of flood emergencies and the roles and responsibilities during such events.

4.3 Possible responses to flooding

4.3.1 Assess The first response to flooding must be to understand the nature and frequency of the risk. The assessment of risk is not just performed as a "one off" during the process, but rather the assessment of risk should be performed during all subsequent stages of responding to flooding.

4.3.2 Avoid The sequential approach requires that the first requirement is to avoid the hazard. If it is possible to place all new growth in areas at a low probability of flooding then the flood risk management considerations will relate solely to ensuring that proposed development does not increase the probability of flooding to others. This can be achieved by implementing SuDS systems and other measures to control and manage run-off. In some circumstances it might be possible to include measures within proposed growth areas that reduce the probability of flooding to others and assist existing communities to adapt to the effects of climate change. In such circumstances the growth proposals should include features that can deliver the necessary levels of mitigation so that the standards of protection and probability of flooding are not reduced by the effects of climate change. In Charnwood, consideration should be given not only to the peak flows generated by new development but also to the volumes generated during longer duration storm events

4.3.3 Substitute, Control and Mitigate These responses all involve management of the flood risk and thus require an understanding of the consequences (the magnitude of the flood hazard and the vulnerability of the receptor). There are opportunities to reduce the flood risk by lowering the vulnerability of the proposed development. For instance changing existing residential land to commercial uses will reduce the risk provided that the residential land can then be located on land in a lower risk flood zone. 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 30

Flood risk management responses in circumstances where there is a need to consider growth or regeneration in areas that are affected by a medium or high probability will include:  Strategic measures to maintain or improve the standard of flood protection so that the growth can be implemented safely for the lifetime of the development (must include provisions to invest in infrastructure that can adapt to the increased chance and severity of flooding presented by climate change);  Design and implement measures so that the proposed development includes features that enables the infrastructure to adapt to the increased probability and severity of flooding whilst ensuring that new communities are safe and that the risk to others is not increased (preferably reduced);  Flood resilient measures that reduce the consequences of flooding to infrastructure so that the magnitude of the consequences is reduced. Such measures would need to be considered alongside improved flood warning, evacuation and welfare procedures so that occupants affected by flooding could be safe for the duration of a flood event and rapidly return to properties after an event had been experienced.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 31

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 32

5 Mapping and risk based approach

5.1 Summary of mapping for all sources of flood risk

5.1.1 Fluvial The data used to prepare mapping is based on the results from hydraulic models either provided by the Environment Agency or prepared for the purposes of this SFRA.  Detailed 1D-2D modelling of the River Soar  1D and 1D-2D modelling of the River Wreake and its tributaries.  1D-2D modelling of the River Soar and its tributaries as part of the Leicester SFRM study.  Modelling outlines using JFlow+ have been developed to determine Flood Zone 3a, Flood Zone 3b and Flood Zone 2 for the following watercourses, as well as the effects of climate change: o Oxley Gutter o Shortcliff Brook o Burleigh Brook (upstream of Hollywell Way) o Wood Brook (upstream of Ralph Close) o Un-named drain and three tributaries (flowing from Ulverscroft Pond to Mill Farm, Quorn) o Un-named drain (flowing through Anstey) o Un-named drain (flowing from MowMacre Hill to Thurcaston) o Melton Brook o Barkby Brook and tributary o Queniborough Brook and tributary o Un-named drains (flowing through Rearsby to the River Wreake) o Ox Brook o Un-named drain (flowing past Cossington and Sileby) o Sileby Brook o Walton Brook o Un-named drain (from Prestwold to the River Soar) o Un-named drain (flowing past Cotes) o King‟s Brook o Kingston Brook o Burton Brook

5.1.2 Surface Water Mapping of surface water flood risk has been taken from updated Flood Maps for Surface Water (UFMfSW) published online by the Environment Agency in December 2013. This information is based on a national scale map identifying those areas where surface water flooding poses a risk. Flooding is separated into the following four categories:  High – An area has a chance of flooding greater than 1 in 30 (3.3%) each year.  Medium – An area has a chance of flooding between 1 in 100 (0.1%) and 1in 30 (3.3%) each year.  Low – An area has a chance of flooding between 1 in 1000 (0.1%) and 1in 100 (1%) each year.  Very Low – An area has a chance of flooding of less than 1 in 1000 (0.1%) each year.

5.1.3 Hazard Maps Hazard mapping has also been produced for the potential development areas. The hazard rating is calculated directly within the 1D-2D models and utilises the classifications of hazard

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 33

presented in DEFRA R&D Technical Note FD2320: Flood Risk Assessment. The hazard mapping output from Jflow does not include a debris factor. In order for the hazard mapping across the Charnwood Borough to be consistent, the debris factor has been added to the Jflow hazard mapping outputs. It should be noted that the hazard mapping prepared for the SFRA will need to be refined when more detailed consideration is given to preparing development proposals at the respective sites where development is proposed. This should be done at the detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) stage. At that time it is likely that more detailed 1D-2D modelling will have to be prepared to enable results with an appropriate level of detail and resolution.

5.1.4 Suite of Maps All of the mapping can be found in the appendices and is presented in the following structure  Flood Zones, including flooding from ordinary watercourses modelled as part of the SFRA  Climate change outlines  Depth mapping  Velocity mapping  Hazard mapping  Surface water flood risk mapping  Ground water flooding  Flood warning coverage  Defences

5.2 Other relevant flood risk information The mapping prepared for this SFRA provides information on:  The extent of flooding,  The depth of flooding  Flood water velocity  Hazard from flood water Note: depth, velocity and hazard mapping is only available in areas where 2D modelling exists.

Other relevant information on flood risk should be referred to by users of this SFRA, where available and appropriate. This information includes:  River Trent Catchment flood Management Plan (2010) – Environment Agency  Leicestershire Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (2011) – Leicestershire County Council  Surface Water Management Plan (2012) – Leicester City Council  Flood Risk Management Plan in accordance with the Flood Risk Regulations (available in 2015) – Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority  Environment Agency‟s Asset Information Management System (AIMS) – users should note that recently completed schemes may not yet be included in this dataset.

5.3 Sequential approach It is often the case that it is not possible for all new development to be allocated on land that is not at risk from flooding. In these circumstances the Flood Zone maps (that show the extent of inundation assuming that there are no defences) are too simplistic. A greater understanding of the scale and nature of the flood risks are required. To help achieve this, more detailed modelling has been undertaken, including depth, hazard and velocity outputs. The ability to manage flood risk for new development must consider a wide range of issues, which includes how any evacuation of the occupants would be handled, how the new development fits in with the existing flood management provision and, should there be an event,

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 34

how quickly the wider area would recover and return to normal. Some areas, either through natural or artificial topography, are easier to integrate flood management measures into the new development, without causing a significant alteration in its design and its place setting. These measures can have the potential to cause an alteration to the flood risk to adjacent property or in flood cells on the opposite bank.

5.4 Sequential Test The Sequential Test must be performed when considering the placement of future development and for planning application proposals. The Planning Practice Guidance to the NPPF gives detailed instructions on how to perform the test. These instructions on how to perform the test should be used with the following information from the SFRA:  Identify the area to be assessed (including alternatives) on the Flood Zone Maps that are provided with this assessment;  Establish the risk of flooding from other sources again using the maps in this SFRA; and  Follow the instructions given in the Planning Practice Guidance. The Sequential Test is used to direct all new development (through the site allocation process) to locations at least risk of flooding, giving highest priority to Flood Zone 1. The SFRA provides further flood risk evidence which the councils can use to assess whether it is necessary to revisit/update the Sequential Test. The Environment Agency (2009)9 recommends that the following approach is used by local planning authorities to apply the Sequential Test to planning applications located in Flood Zones 2 or 3. There are three stages to the test, as follows:  Stage 1 – Strategic application & development vulnerability  Stage 2 – Defining the evidence base  Stage 3 – Applying the Sequential Test

Stage 1 – Strategic Application & Development Vulnerability

The Sequential Test can be considered adequately demonstrated if both of the following criteria are met:  The Sequential Test has already been carried out for the site (for the same development type) at the strategic level (development plan) in line with procedures agreed within the National Planning Policy Framework; and  The development vulnerability is appropriate to the Flood Zone (see Table 3 of NPPF Planning Practice Guidance)

1.1 Has the Sequential Test already been carried out for this development at the development plan level? If yes, reference should be provided to the site allocation and Development Plan Document (DPD) in question. 1.2 Is the flood risk vulnerability classification of the proposal appropriate to the Flood Zone in which the site is located according to Tables 1 and 3 of the NPPF Planning Practice Guidance? The vulnerability of the development should be clearly stated. Finish here if the answer is „Yes‟ to both questions 1.1 and 1.2. Only complete Stages 2 and 3 if the answer to either questions 1.1 and 1.2 is „No‟.

9 Environment Agency (2009) Demonstrating the flood risk (PPS25) Sequential Test for Planning Applications, PPS25 FRSA (national) version 2.0 Advise issued on 27 January 2009 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 35

Stage 2 – Defining the Evidence Base 2.1 State the geographical area over which the test is to be applied. 2.2 If greater or less than the boundary of Charnwood Borough justify why the geographical area for applying the test has been chosen.

Identify the geographical area of search over which the test is to be applied: This will usually be over the whole of the Charnwood Borough but may be reduced where justified by the functional arrangements of the development (e.g. catchment area for a school or doctors surgery) or relevant objectives in the Local Plan. For example, if a local need such as affordable housing or town centre renewal has been identified as part of the Sustainability Appraisal process that has reached `submission' stage, this might mean that the geographical area of search is restricted to a specific regeneration area. Equally, in some circumstances it may be appropriate to expand the search area beyond the council boundary for uses that have a national market.

2.3 Identify the source of reasonable available sites, either:  Background / evidence base documents (state which), or if not available  Other sites known to the councils that meet the functional requirements of the application Identify the source of ‘reasonably available’ alternative sites: These sites will usually be drawn from the evidence base / background documents that have been produced to inform the emerging Local Plan. For example, an important source of information for housing sites and development land will be provided by the SHLAA and the Employment Land Review (ELR). In the absence of background documents, `reasonably available' sites would include any sites that are known to the LPA and that meet the functional requirements of the application in question, and where necessary, meet the Local Plan Policy criterion for windfall development (see below).

Windfall sites: These are sites which have not been specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally comprise previously developed sites that have unexpectedly become available. The Environment Agency recommend that the acceptability of windfall applications in flood risk areas should be considered at the strategic level through a policy setting out broad locations and quantities of windfall development that would be acceptable or not in Sequential Test terms. In the absence of a flood risk windfall policy, it may be possible (where the data is sufficiently robust) for the LPA to apply the Sequential Test taking into account historic windfall rates and their distribution across the district relative to Flood Zones. Where historic and future trends evidence indicate that housing need in the district through windfall can be met largely/entirely by development outside high flood risk areas, this may provide grounds for factoring this into the consideration of `reasonably available' alternative sites at the planning application stage.

2.4 State the method used for comparing the flood risk between sites, whether it is this SFRA or an alternative (e.g. Environment Agency flood map, site specific flood risk assessment) as new information becomes available. Identify the means of comparing flood risk between each site: As a starting point this will be the Environment Agency Map showing the Flood Zones. If comparing sites within the same Flood Zone it is necessary to use a SFRA showing a variation in risk throughout the Flood Zone or site specific FRAs where these are available and suitable for the purpose.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 36

Stage 3 – Applying the Sequential Test

Compare the reasonably available sites identified under stage 2 with the application site: Sites should be compared in relation to flood risk; development plan status; capacity; and constraints to delivery including availability, policy restrictions, physical problems or limitations, potential impacts of the development, and future environmental conditions that would be experienced by the inhabitants of the development.

3.1 State the name and location of the reasonably available site options being compared to the application site 3.2 Indicate whether flood risk on the reasonable available options is higher or lower than the application site. State the Flood Zone or SFRA classification for each site. 3.3 State whether the reasonably available options being considered are allocated in the Development Plan. Confirm the status of the plan. 3.4 State the approximate capacity of each reasonably available site being considered. This should be based on:  the density policy within the Local Plan  the current Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)  past performance

3.5 Detail any constraints to the delivery of identified reasonably available options; for example, availability within a given time period or lack of appropriate infrastructure i.e. flood defences which protect the site through its design lifetime. This part of the test should include recommendations on how these constraints should be overcome and when.

Sequential Test Conclusion Are there any reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding, which would be appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed?

Next Steps

Exception Test: Where necessary, the Exception Test should now be applied in the circumstances set out by Tables 1 and 3 of NPPF Planning Practice Guidance.

Applying the sequential approach at the site level: In addition to the formal Sequential Test, developers should apply the sequential approach to locating development within the site. The following questions should be considered:  Can risk be avoided through substituting less vulnerable uses or by amending the site lay-out?  Has the applicant demonstrated that less vulnerable uses for the site have been considered and reasonably discounted?  Can layout be varied to reduce the number of people or flood risk vulnerability or building units located in higher risk parts of the site?

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 37

5.5 Exception Test If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible for the development to be located in areas with a lower probability of flooding then the Exception Test can be applied, if appropriate. The aim of the Exception Test is to ensure that more vulnerable property types, such as residential development, are not located in areas at high risk of flooding. For the Test to be passed, both the following elements have to be passed for development to be allocated or permitted:  It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a SFRA where one has been prepared, and  A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

If it is proposed that development should include provision of an emergency plan then consultations should be held with the appropriate emergency services and the local authority and advice sought. The NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance give detailed information on how the Test can be applied and should be used in conjunction with the mapping created for this SFRA.

5.6 Cumulative impact of development When allocating land for development, the potential cumulative impact of the loss of floodplain storage at the development site, and elsewhere within the catchment, needs to be considered and, if required, mitigation should be provided1. Whilst individual developments may only have a minimal impact on flood risk, multiple developments may have a more significant effect. Application of the flood risk management hierarchy should be used before measures such as land raising or new defences are considered1. Developers should also consider how development can be used to provide flood risk benefits downstream.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 38

6 Overview of all development options

6.1 Review of future development The draft Core Strategy for Charnwood Borough was published in June 2013. The draft Core Strategy is the primary document of the Charnwood Local Plan, which will provide a strategy for delivering growth for Charnwood up to 2028, replacing the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004. The draft Core Strategy10 describes how the Council have objectively assessed the need for homes in light of up to date evidence, with 790 homes a year being an appropriate housing requirement for Charnwood – 17,380 new homes in the borough during the plan period (2006 – 2028). The draft draft Core Strategy also sets out how the Council aim to help boost economic recovery in the area, developing plans for the regeneration of the Watermead corridor, further development of the Loughborough Science and Enterprise Park, and a regeneration plan for Shepshed. This section does not attempt to undertake the Sequential Test for potential development options; however, the information it contains can form part of the evidence base used by the Council when deciding future allocations and sites, and will assist them with application of the Sequential Test and Exception Tests. A number of potential development options have been considered throughout the various stages of preparation of the draft Core Strategy and these are set out below:  West of Loughborough SUE  South west of Loughborough  South of Loughborough  Adjoining Shepshed  North of Birstall  North east of Leicester SUE  North of Glenfield  Loughborough Science and Enterprise Park  Wymeswold Airfield  East of Loughborough  South east of Syston  Adjoining Anstey  Watermead Corridor The Service Centres have also been considered for future development and include the following:  Anstey  Barrow upon Soar  Mountsorrel  Quorn  Rothley  Shepshed  Sileby  Syston

10 Charnwood Local Plan 2006 to 2028 draft Core Strategy: Pre-submission draft (June 2013) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 39

6.2 Assessment of flood risk to all potential development sites within Charnwood Borough. This section includes an assessment of the local flood risks affecting all potential development options in Charnwood, which have been assessed in the preparation of the draft Core Strategy.

6.2.1 West of Loughborough Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) Figure 6-1: Potential development location – West of Loughborough

This site is situated west of Loughborough, between the urban extent of Loughborough and the M1 motorway, north of Ashby Road. The Black Brook (classed as Main River) flows through the north of the site draining towards Loughborough and has been associated with flooding further downstream in the Thorpe Acre area. The centre of the site drains into the Oxley Gutter, a tributary of the Black Brook, that flows north east through the site. An unnamed tributary of the Burleigh Brook flows through the south of the site. This tributary and the Oxley Gutter are classed as ordinary watercourses and have catchment areas less than 3km2 and, therefore, they will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of these watercourses has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk. Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from the Black Brook, Oxley Gutter and the un-named tributary of the Burleigh Brook  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges  This site has the potential to be used to reduce flood risk downstream through attenuation of flows.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 40

6.2.2 South west of Loughborough Figure 6-2: Potential development location – South west of Loughborough

This site is situated south west of Loughborough. The majority of the site drains north to the Wood Brook and a small un-named tributary of the Wood Brook. The Wood Brook flows east through the north of the site, whilst the un-named tributary flows north through the middle of the site before joining the Wood Brook further downstream in Loughborough. The un-named tributary is classed as ordinary watercourse and has a catchment area less than 3km2 and, therefore, it will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of this tributary has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk from the tributary. The Wood Brook is associated with flooding further downstream in Loughborough. Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from the Wood Brook and un-named tributary  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges along the Wood Brook.  This site has the potential to be used to reduce flood risk downstream through attenuation of flows.

6.2.3 South of Loughborough This site is situated south of Loughborough, between the urban boundaries of Loughborough and Quorn. The site drains north east towards the River Soar, the flood plain of which falls within the eastern boundary of the site. A small un-named tributary of the River Soar flows north west through the north of the site, and a small un-named tributary of the Quorn Brook flows north east along the eastern boundary before changing direction and flowing south east through Quorn. The un-named tributaries are classed as ordinary watercourses and have catchment areas less than 3km2 and, therefore, they will not appear on the Environment Agency flood

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 41

maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of these watercourses has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk.

Figure 6-3: Potential development location – South of Loughborough

Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from the River Soar and the un-named tributaries  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges

6.2.4 Adjoining Shepshed This site is situated to the west of Shepshed, north of the A512 (Ashby Road). The majority of the site drains north towards the Grace Dieu Brook and Black Brook. Both watercourses are classed as Main River. The Grace Dieu Brook flows east along the northern boundary of the site before joining with the Black Brook just upstream of Shepshed. The Black Brook flows north east through the east of the site. A small un-named tributary of the Black Brook also flows north through the southern section of the site. The Black Brook is associated with flooding further downstream at Thorpe Acre. A small section of the site is located east of Shepshed between the urban area of Shepshed and the M1. The Oxley Gutter flows north through the centre of this section of the site. The un-named tributary of the Black Brook and the Oxley Gutter are classed as ordinary watercourse and have catchment areas less than 3km2 and, therefore, will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of these watercourses has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 42

Figure 6-4: Potential development location – Adjoining Shepshed

Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding along the northern site boundary from the Grace Dieu Brook and from the Black Brook, un-named tributary and Oxley Gutter through the site itself  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges on the Grace Dieu Brook, Oxley Gutter or Black Brook

6.2.5 North of Birstall This site is situated north of Birstall, south of Rothley. The majority of the site drains northwards towards the Rothley Brook which flows past the northern site boundary. The Rothley Brook is classed as Main River. Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding along the northern site boundary from the Rothley Brook  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges on the Rothley Brook

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 43

Figure 6-5: Potential development location – North of Birstall

6.2.6 North east of Leicester Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) This site is situated east of Thurmaston, in the south of Charnwood Borough. The Barkby Brook flows along the northern boundary, whilst the Melton Brook flows along the southern boundary. The Barkby Brook is classed as ordinary watercourses where is passes the site before changing to Main River as it enters Syston, and the Melton Brook is classed as ordinary watercourse where it passes the site before changing to Main River as it enters Rushey Mead / Thurmaston. An un-named tributary of the Melton Brook flows through the centre of the site. This un-named tributary is classed as ordinary watercourse and has a catchment area less than 3km2 and, therefore, it will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of this tributary has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk from the tributary. The Barkby Brook and Melton Brook are tributaries of the River Soar, joining west of the potential development site. Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from the Barkby and Melton Brooks, as well as the un-named tributary of the Melton Brook that flows through the centre of the site  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 44

Figure 6-6: Potential development location – North east of Leicester SUE

6.2.7 North of Glenfield Figure 6-7: Potential development location – North of Glenfield

This site is situated north of Glenfield and Leicester City and south of Anstey. The majority of the site drains into the Rothley Brook. There is an un-named tributary of the Rothley Brook that

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 45

flows through the east of the site. This tributary is classed as ordinary watercourse and has a catchment area less than 3km2 and, therefore, it will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of this tributary has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk from the tributary. Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding in the west of the site from the Rothley Brook, and in the west of the site from the un-named tributary.  Modelling of the un-named tributary suggests there is some fluvial flood risk to the A46  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges

6.2.8 Loughborough Science and Enterprise Park This site is situated west of Loughborough, between the urban extent of Loughborough and the M1 motorway, south of Ashby Road. The tributary of the Burleigh Brook flows through the centre of the site draining north east into the Burleigh Brook. This tributary is classed as ordinary watercourse and has a catchment area less than 3km2 and, therefore, it will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of this tributary has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk from the tributary. Downstream of the site the Burleigh Brook is classed as Main River and is associated with flooding within Loughborough. Figure 6-8: Potential development location – Loughborough Science and Enterprise Park

Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from a tributary of the Burleigh Brook that flows east through the centre of the site  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 46

 With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges  This site has the potential to be used to reduce flood risk downstream through attenuation of flows.

6.2.9 Wymeswold Airfield This site is situated east of Loughborough, outside of the River Soar floodplain. The western portion of the site drains into a tributary of the Burton Brook, the eastern portion drains into a tributary of the King‟s Brook. These tributaries are classed as ordinary watercourse and have catchment areas less than 3km2 and, therefore, will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of these tributaries has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk from by these tributaries. Figure 6-9: Potential development location – Wymeswold Airfield

Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from two tributaries of the King‟s Brook flowing through the eastern portion of the site, and a tributary of the Burton Brook that flows through the south west of the site  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges

6.2.10 East of Loughborough This site is situated east of Loughborough, off the right bank of the River Soar. The majority of the site drains south west towards the River Soar. Two un-named tributaries of the River Soar flow south west through the site. These tributaries are classed as ordinary watercourse and have catchment areas less than 3km2 and therefore will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of these tributaries

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 47

has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk from by these tributaries. The King‟s Brook also flows past the north west boundary of the site. Figure 6-10: Potential development location – East of Loughborough

Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from the River Soar and its two un-named tributaries  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges  Safe access and egress issues along the A60 to Loughborough

6.2.11 South east of Syston This site is situated south east of Syston, in the south of Charnwood Borough. The majority of the site drains north west into the Barkby Brook. The Barkby Brook is classed as ordinary watercourse as it flows through the site, becoming classed as Main River as it enters Syston. Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from the Barkby Brook and its un-named tributary flowing through the centre of the site.  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges  This site has the potential to be used to reduce flood risk downstream through attenuation of flows.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 48

Figure 6-11: Potential development location – South east of Syston

6.2.12 Adjoining Anstey Figure 6-12: Potential development location – Adjoining Anstey

This site is situated in the south of Charnwood Borough, just north of Anstey. The majority of the site drains south east towards the Rothley Brook. The Rothley Brook flows past some sections

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 49

of the eastern boundary. An un-named tributary of the Rothley Brook flows through the north of the site. This tributary is classed as ordinary watercourse and has a catchment area less than 3km2 and, therefore, will not appear on the Environment Agency flood maps. However, for the purposes of this study, generalised modelling of this tributary has been undertaken to provide more information on the flood risk from. Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from the Rothley Brook and the two un-named tributaries  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges

6.2.13 Watermead Corridor Figure 6-13: Potential development location – Watermead Corridor

This site is located in the south of the Borough, west of Syston and Thurmaston. The sites are located adjacent to the River Soar and the Grand Union Canal. The River Soar is classed as Main River. Potential flood risks relating to the development of this site include:  Potential fluvial flooding from the River Soar  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem  Potential risk of a breach of the artificially raised high ground which currently prevents flood water reaching the northern section of the site

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 50

6.2.14 Service Centres Figure 6-14: Potential development location – Service Centres

The service centres are a string of larger villages that extend southwards through the Charnwood Borough along the Soar Valley and A6. They also include Anstey and Shepshed. The Service Centres will provide new homes and employment land; the location of which has not yet been decided and will be identified through the later stages of the planning process. Potential flood risks relating to development located within the Service Centres include:  Where watercourses flow through or in close proximity to any development sites there is the potential for fluvial flooding  There is additional flood risk from surface water flooding and overland flows generated by development sites, which may affect the development site as well as already developed areas of the Service Centre  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem within the Service Centre  Potential risks from blockages or insufficient capacity of culverts or bridges  Some of these sites may have the potential to be used to reduce flood risk downstream through attenuation of flows.

6.2.15 Summary The previous section has set out a summary of potential flood risk associated with each potential development option. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the flood risk coverage to all the potential development options. Note: the percentage figures provided relate to the portion of the site covered by the individual flood zone / surface water category compared to the area of the site as a whole, not compared to the portion of the site covered by other flood zones. There is some overlap between flood zones, for example if a site is covered by Flood Zone 3, this same portion will be covered by Flood Zone 2.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 51

Table 6-1: Summary of flood risk coverage to potential development options Percentage of site covered Potential Development Option Fluvial flood risk Surface water flood risk FZ1 FZ2 FZ3a FZ3b FZ3a+cc 30yr 100yr 1,000yr West of Loughborough SUE 86 14 11 6 11 3 5 12 South West of Loughborough 92 8 7 6 7 2 4 13 South of Loughborough 90 10 7 4 9 3 5 10 Adjoining Shepshed 85 15 9 6 9 4 6 15 North of Birstall 100 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 North East of Leicester 92 8 6 6 7 5 9 17 Loughborough Science & Enterprise 96 4 3 2 3 1 2 8 Park Wymeswold Airfield 97 3 3 2 3 1 2 8 East of Loughborough 94 6 5 4 6 3 5 10 South East of Syston 87 13 6 5 7 3 6 14 Adjoining Anstey 96 4 3 3 3 1 2 7 Watermead Regeneration Corridor 24 76 28 20 29 0 2 12

This information can be used to help inform the Sequential Test. The majority of the potential sites do not, at the strategic scale, present any significant flood constraints, and, following the Sequential Test process, development could be taken forward at these sites, preferentially on the basis of lower flood risk. This can be undertaken as part of a local plan sustainability appraisal. Alternatively, it can be demonstrated through a free-standing document, or as part of strategic housing land or employment land availability assessments. NPPF Planning Practice Guidance for Flood Risk and Coastal Change describes how the Sequential Test should be applied in the preparation of a Local Plan (Figure 6-15). Figure 6-15: Applying the Sequential Test in the preparation of a Local Plan†

Can development be allocated in Flood Zone 1?* YES Sequential Test passed (Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment) NO

Can development be allocated in Flood Zone 2? YES Allocate, but apply Exception (Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Test if highly vulnerable Assessment) lowest risk sites first NO

Can development be allocated within the lowest YES Allocate, subject to Exception risk sites available in Flood Test if necessary Zone 3? NO

Is development appropriate in YES Allocate, subject to Exception the remaining areas? Test NO * other sources of flooding also Strategically review need for need to be development using considered Sustainability Appraisal

† Based on Diagram 2 of NPPF Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change (paragraph 020, Reference ID: 7-021-20140306) March 2014

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 52

7 Detailed assessment of draft Core Strategy site allocations and Directions of Growth

7.1 Introduction Charnwood Borough Council has reviewed all the development options outlined in Section 6 and the following sites have been taken forward as site allocations and Directions of Growth in the draft Core Strategy.  North East of Leicester SUE  North of Birstall Direction of Growth  Watermead Regeneration Corridor  West of Loughborough SUE  Loughborough Science & Enterprise Park  Shepshed Direction of Growth  Service Centres Flood risk to the draft Core Strategy proposed strategic allocations and Directions of Growth has been assessed in more detail and summarised in a series of summary tables provided in Section 7.2.

7.1.1 Note on SuDS suitability The hydraulic and geological characteristics of each strategic site allocation were assessed to determine the constraining factors for surface water management at the sites. This assessment is designed to inform the early-stage site planning process and is not intended to replace site- specific detailed drainage assessments. From catchment characteristics and additional datasets (areas susceptible to groundwater flooding map, Soil map of England and Wales, Environment Agency 'What's in your Backyard' online mapping) a broad criterion for the applicability of SuDS techniques was determined. These criteria were then used to carry out a simple assessment of the likely feasibility of different types of SuDS techniques at each of the proposed strategic site allocations. SuDS techniques were categorized into five main groups as follows. Table 7-1: Summary of SuDS Categories SuDS Type Technique

Green Roof, Rainwater Harvesting, Pervious Pavements, Rain Source Controls Gardens

Infiltration Infiltration Trench, Infiltration Basin, Soakaway

Pond, Wetland, Subsurface Storage, Shallow Wetland, Extended Detention Detention Wetland, Pocket Wetland, Submerged Gravel Wetland, Wetland Channel, Detention Basin

Surface Sand filter, Sub-Surface Sand Filter, Perimeter Sand Filter, Filtration Bioretention, Filter Strip, Filter Trench

Conveyance Dry Swale, Underdrained Swale, Wet Swale

The suitability of each SuDS type for the draft draft Core Strategy proposed strategic site allocations has been displayed using a traffic light colour system in the summary tables. The assessment of suitability is broad scale and indicative only; more detailed assessments should be carried out during the site planning stage to confirm the feasibility of different types of SuDS.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 53

Suitability Description The SuDS Group and its associated techniques are unlikely to be suitable at the development site based on the results of this assessment. The SuDS Group and its associated techniques may be suitable at the development but is likely to require additional engineering works. Some techniques from this group may not be suitable for use at the development. The SuDS Group and its associated techniques are likely to be suitable at the development site based on the results of this assessment.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 54

7.2 Summary tables and maps The following tables summarise the flood risk to draft draft Core Strategy proposed strategic site allocations.

Table 7-2: Site Summary Table: North East of Leicester SUE

OS NGR: 463597 308658 Area: 269.7ha Brown/Greenfield: Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3a: FZ3b: FZ2: FZ1: 0.6% 5.6% 2.0% 91.8% Surface Water Coverage 30yr: 100yr 1,000yr None: 5% 3.5% 8.2% 83.3% Proposed Development Details: This site will deliver the following:  4,500 houses (30% affordable housing)  13 hectares of employment  3 primary schools  Local centre  Extended Green Wedge  New main road  Travelling show people pitches. Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas that run through the centre of the development site. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this development site by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment.  Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at an early stage. Flood Zone Map:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 2

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 55

Climate Change:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Surface Water Map:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary uFMfSW 30-year Extent uFMfSW 100-year Extent uFMfSW 1000-year Extent

This map gives an indication of the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is fluvial, resulting from overtopping of the Barkby Brook flowing along the northern site boundary and the Melton Brook flowing through the southern portions of the proposed development site.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability Source All forms of source control are likely to be suitable Control Mapping suggests low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site investigation should be Infiltration carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 56

 A detailed site assessment should be conducted to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable for this site.

Flood Defences: There are no flood defences located within this site. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the River Wreake in Leicestershire and the Upper Soar Catchment Flood Alert Areas. No Flood Warning currently covers this site. Access and Egress: Part of Barkby Lane is shown to be in Flood Zone 2. However, Barkby Thorpe Road is not shown to be at risk from flooding. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the Barkby Brook and the Melton Brook. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk to other areas of the site.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  If development is proposed in close vicinity of the Barkby Brook or the Melton Brook it is recommended that a detailed hydraulic model be developed to determine more accurately the extent of flooding from the both watercourses.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  Surface water mapping shows flow paths of surface water towards Thurmaston where some areas are shown to be a risk from surface water. The development of this site could potentially increase risk to this area through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 57

Table 7-3: Site Summary Table: North of Birstall Direction of Growth

OS NGR: 458508 311112 Brown/Greenfield: Greenfield Proposed Development Details: This development proposal is a Direction of Growth and the location of development including the site boundary will be identified through the Site Allocation and Development Management Policies process. The Local Plan details that this area will deliver the following:  1,500 houses (30% affordable housing)  15 hectares of employment  1 primary school  Local centre  New road links  Upgrade of A6/A46 junction  Garden suburb  Travelling show people pitches. Exception Test required? No NPPF Guidance  For development proposals on sites comprising one hectare or above in Flood Zone 1 the vulnerability of flooding from other sources as well as from river flooding should be incorporated into a FRA. The potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off must be included.  Developers and local authorities should seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area and beyond through the layout and form of the development and through appropriate sustainable drainage techniques. Development should not be permitted in the small proportion of the site that is within the Flood Zone Map: Flood Zones. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 58

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

Surface Water Map:

SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows from adjacent developments.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability The majority of the forms of source control would be suitable except pervious pavements due to contamination risk from landfill deposits. Source Further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Control Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency may be needed.

Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area however; landfill deposits in the localised area make infiltration unsuitable Infiltration without further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 59

 Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  The site is bordered by historic landfill areas. Investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency may be needed to assess the risk of contamination.  A detailed site assessment should be conducted to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable for this site. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences located within this site. Flood Warning: There is currently no Flood Alert or Flood Warning Area covering this site. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities. Access and Egress: There are no access and egress issues for this site. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  Surface water mapping shows flow paths of surface water towards Wanlip where some areas are shown to be a risk from surface water. The development of this site could potentially increase risk to this area through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 60

Table 7-4: Site Summary Table: Watermead Regeneration Corridor (Site 1)

OS NGR: 460996 311124 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This development proposal is a Direction of Growth and the location of development including the site boundary will be identified through the Site Allocation and Development Management Policies process. The site aims to help deliver the following:  Regeneration of Thurmaston Centre and Waterfront  Regeneration of Grand Union Canal  Improved accessibility  Redevelopment of industrial areas  New employment and hotel development along the A607 Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. Artificially raised ground may be acting as an unofficial flood defence. If this is the case, then breach or overtopping of this land would significantly increase the flood risk in the site. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size and will need to investigate what, if any, influence the unofficial, artificially raised ground has on flood risk at the site.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas where possible. As this site is predominantly covered by Flood Zone 2, and has historic records of flooding, efforts should be made to reduce flood risk by using sequential design to locate more vulnerable development outside of flood zones, and through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. New developments being located outside of Flood Zone 2 and 3 needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs, both within the site and elsewhere. Flood Consultation Zone Map: with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at an early stage. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 61

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

Surface Water Map:

SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is from overtopping of the River Soar which flows along the western site boundary. The majority of the site falls within Flood Zone 2.  The artificially raised land, adjacent to the canal, may be acting as an unofficial flood defence protecting the site.  There is also flood risk from overtopping of the Grand Union Canal located along the western site boundary. There is potential for interaction between the canal and the Rivers Soar and Wreake.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. The small lake to the north of this site act as surface water balancing for a development on the opposite side of the A607 road. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability All forms of source control are likely to be suitable however, due to Source the proximity to the River Soar‟s floodplain may not be suitable for Control pervious pavement. Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area however; the Infiltration ground water table at this location is likely to be high making this series of techniques unsuitable. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This series of techniques is unsuitable due to the proximity of the Filtration River Soar and likelihood of a high ground water table. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 62

provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  A detailed site assessment should be conducted to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable for this site. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences located within this site. There may be some unofficial protection by artificially raised ground adjacent to the canal. However, this is not a formal flood defence and, if it does act as a barrier to flood water, there is a risk of breach or overtopping, increasing the flood risk to the site. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the River Wreake in Leicestershire and the Upper Soar Catchment Flood Alert Areas and is partially covered by the River Wreake at Syston flood warning area Access and Egress: With the exception of the A607, all access roads to the site are shown to be within Flood Zone 2. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the River Soar. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  This site is shown to be at risk of flooding with the majority of the site falling within Flood Zone 2. A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1. A detailed, site specific, flood risk assessment will have to provide sufficient, suitable, evidence to demonstrate that the site passes both part a and part b of the Exception Test.  Any protection provided by the artificially raised land adjacent to the canal needs to be investigated – if this land were found to be acting as an informal flood defence then overtopping or breach could significantly increase the flood risk to the site.  The potential interaction between the Grand Union Canal, the River Soar and the River Wreake requires investigating to provide greater understanding of the interaction between the watercourses and any implications for flood risk at the site.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  Development of this site could potentially increase surface water flooding problems – surface water from the site on the opposite side of the A607 drains into the small lake to the north of this site. Any development would need to ensure this is taken into consideration.  Development of this site could potentially increase runoff into the River Soar and contribute to flooding problems further downstream. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 63

Table 7-5: Site Summary Table: Watermead Regeneration Corridor (Site 2)

OS NGR: 460614 309035 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This development proposal is a Direction of Growth and the location of development including the site boundary will be identified through the Site Allocation and Development Management Policies process. The site aims to help deliver the following:  Regeneration of Thurmaston Centre and Waterfront  Regeneration of Grand Union Canal  Improved accessibility  Redevelopment of industrial areas  New employment and hotel development along the A607 Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flood zones, although the main development types are classed as More Vulnerable and are permitted in FZ2 according to NPPF. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this development site by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment. Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at Flood Zone Map: an early stage. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 64

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

Surface Water Map:

SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is from overtopping of the River Soar which flows along the western site boundary.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows from adjacent developments.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. The lakes on this site act as surface water balancing for the site on the opposite side of the A607 road. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability All forms of source control are likely to be suitable however, due to Source the proximity to the River Soar‟s floodplain pervious paving may not Control be suitable. Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area however; the ground water table at this location is likely to be high making this series of techniques unsuitable. Also there are landfill deposits in the Infiltration localised area make infiltration unsuitable without further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This series of techniques is unsuitable due to the proximity of the Filtration River Soar and likelihood of a high ground water table. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 65

provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  The site is bordered by historic landfill areas. Investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency may be needed to assess the risk of contamination.  A detailed site assessment should be conducted to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable for this site. Flood Defences: There are a series of embankments and a flood wall located on the River Soar, within the proposed development site. The Environment Agency‟s NaFRA mapping shows the risk to the area behind these defences as Low (chance of flooding of between 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) and 1 in 100 (1%)) or Medium (chance of flooding of between 1 in 100 (1%) and 1 in 30 (3.3%)). Overtopping of these defences is shown in Flood Zone 3a suggesting work may be required to raise the defences to an acceptable standard. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Upper Soar Catchment Flood Alert Area and the River Soar at Thurmaston Flood Warning Area. Access and Egress: Assured Drive, Bridge Park Road and parts of Dorothy Avenue and Melton Road are shown to be in Flood Zones 2 and 3a, potentially affecting safe access and egress. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the River Soar. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  Development of this site could potentially increase runoff into the River Soar and contribute to flooding problems further downstream. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 66

Table 7-6: Site Summary Table: West of Loughborough SUE

OS NGR: 449713 320111 Area: 522.1ha Brown/Greenfield: Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3a: FZ3b: FZ2: FZ1: 4.4% 6.1% 3.4% 86.1% Surface Water Coverage 30yr: 100yr 1,000yr None: 2.9% 1.9% 6.8% 88.4% Proposed Development Details: This site will deliver the following:  3,000 homes (30% affordable housing)  16 hectares of employment  2 primary schools  Local centre  New public park  New main road link from A512 to A6  Hathern Road link  Traveller people pitches Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas that run through the centre of the development site. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this development site by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment.  Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at an early stage. Flood Zone Map:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 2

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 67

Climate Change:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Surface Water Map:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary uFMfSW 30-year Extent uFMfSW 100-year Extent uFMfSW 1000-year Extent

This map gives an indication of the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is from overtopping of the Black Brook, Shortcliff Brook, Oxley Gutter and an unnamed watercourse which flow through the centre of the site and along the southern site boundary.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows from adjacent developments.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability The majority of the forms of source control would be suitable however; pervious pavements should be non-infiltrating systems due to the Source possible contamination risk from landfill deposits. If infiltration is

Control required further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency is needed

Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area however; landfill deposits in the localised area make infiltration unsuitable Infiltration without further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 68

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  The site is bordered by historic landfill areas. Investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency may be needed to assess the risk of contamination.  A detailed site assessment should be conducted to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable for this site. Flood Defences: There are a series of flood embankments along the Black Brook, downstream of the development site. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Loughborough Urban Watercourses Flood Alert Area. No Flood Warning currently covers this site. Access and Egress: Parts of Hathern Road are shown to be in Flood Zones 2, potentially affecting safe access and egress using this road. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the Black Brook, Shortcliff Brook, Oxley Gutter and the unnamed watercourse. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  If development is proposed in close vicinity of the Shortcliff Brook, Oxley Gutter or the unnamed watercourse it is recommended that a detailed hydraulic model be developed to determine more accurately the extent of flooding from the both watercourses.  Where development takes place in areas protected by flood defences a detailed assessment should be conducted to determine the residual risk from the defences. This would also assist in the sequential approach to the layout of any development and setting finished floor levels per EA guidance.  A number of drainage channels are shown within the site boundary. Not all of these channels have been modelled due to the broad scale nature of this study. These should be assessed in more detail if there is to be development in these areas.  The embankment of the dismantled railway south of Garendon Park may be acting as a critical structure, holding back flood water from the Shortcliff Brook and potentially diverting the flood water eastwards towards Loughborough.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  Where possible, consideration should be given to using this site to improve flood risk elsewhere, for example, through the attenuation of flows.  Surface water mapping shows flow paths of surface water towards Dishley and Thorpe Acre where some areas are shown to be a risk from surface water. The development of this site could potentially increase risk to this area through increased runoff. Increased runoff into the Black Brook could also potentially increase flooding downstream. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 69

downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 70

Table 7-7: Site Summary Table: Loughborough Science & Enterprise Park

OS NGR: 450177 317987 Area: 78.4ha Brown/Greenfield: Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3a: FZ3b: FZ2: FZ1: 0.8% 2.0% 1.0% 96.2% Surface Water Coverage 30yr: 100yr 1,000yr None: 1.3% 1.1% 5.3% 92.3% Proposed Development Details: This site will deliver the following:  77 hectares of campus style extension.  40% landscaping and green spaces  111,000m2 for University uses and knowledge based sectors  Innovation Centre  Business Start Ups & Grow on Units Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas that run through the centre of the development site. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this development site by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment.  Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at an early stage. Flood Zone Map:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 2

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 71

Climate Change:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Surface Water Map:

Proposed Development Area Local Authority Boundary uFMfSW 30-year Extent uFMfSW 100-year Extent uFMfSW 1000-year Extent

This map gives an indication of the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is from overtopping of the Burleigh Brook which flows through the centre of the proposed development site.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows from adjacent developments.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability Source All forms of source control are likely to be suitable Control Mapping suggests soils have a low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site Infiltration investigation should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 72

provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  A detailed site assessment should be conducted to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable for this site. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences located within this site. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Loughborough Urban Watercourses Flood Alert Area. No Flood Warning currently covers this site. Access and Egress: Parts of Shepshed Road and Hathern Drive are shown to be in Flood Zones 2 and 3, potentially affecting safe access and egress using these roads. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the Burleigh Brook. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  A number of smaller drainage channels are shown within the site boundary. Not all of these channels have been modelled due to the broad scale nature of this study. These should be assessed in more detail if there is to be development in these areas.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  Surface water mapping shows flow paths of surface water through the centre of the site. The development of this site could potentially increase risk to this area through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 73

Table 7-8: Site Summary Table: Shepshed Direction of Growth

OS NGR: 447867 319358 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This development proposal is a Direction of Growth and the location of development including the site boundary will be identified through the Site Allocation and Development Management Policies process. This site is planning to deliver the following:  500 homes (30% affordable housing)  Regeneration of Shepshed Town Centre  Travelling show people pitches Exception Test required? No (depending on outcome of a detailed FRA that takes the culverted watercourses into consideration) NPPF Guidance:  For development proposals on sites comprising one hectare or above in Flood Zone 1 the vulnerability of flooding from other sources as well as from river flooding should be incorporated into a FRA. The potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off must be included.  Developers and local authorities should seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area and beyond through the layout and form of the development and Flood Zone Map: through appropriate sustainable drainage techniques. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 74

Surface Water Map: SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development and from adjacent developments.  Additional flood risk is from the Black Brook which flows in close proximity to the northern site boundary.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability Source All forms of source control are likely to be suitable Control Mapping suggests soil have a low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site Infiltration investigation should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Detailed site assessments should be conducted for development sites in this area, to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences located within this site. Flood Warnings: There are no flood alerts or flood warnings currently covering this area. Access and Egress: There is no significant access or egress issue in this area. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 75

Flood Risk Implications for Development:  A number of watercourses are shown to be largely culverted throughout this development site. These have not been modelled due to the broad scale nature of the SFRA modelling. Although no flood risk is shown detailed hydraulic models should be developed to determine the flood risk to any proposed development.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  The development of sites in this area could potentially increase risk to this area and further downstream through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 76

Table 7-9: Site Summary Table: Anstey Service Centre

OS NGR: 454880 308922 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This Service Centre is one of the seven Service Centres which will provide 200 new homes and seven hectares of employment land (across the Service Centres). The location of development has not yet been decided and will be identified through the later stages of the planning process. Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of the flooded areas that run through the centre of the service centre and along the eastern boundary. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this service centre by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment. Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at Flood Zone Map: an early stage. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 77

Surface Water Map: SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is the Rothley Brook and an unnamed watercourse. The Rothley Brook flows along the eastern site boundary and the unnamed watercourse flows through the centre of the proposed development site.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability Source All forms of source control are likely to be suitable Control Mapping suggests low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site investigation should be Infiltration carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Detailed site assessments should be conducted for development sites in this area, to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences located within this site. Flood Warnings: The site is partially covered by the Rothley Brook in Leicestershire flood alert area and the Rothley Brook at Glenfield and Anstey flood warning area Access and Egress: Leicester Road is shown to be at risk of flooding, potentially affecting safe access and egress routes.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 78

Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the Rothley Brook and an unnamed watercourse. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  If development is proposed in close vicinity to the Rothley Brook it is recommended that the EA be contacted to gain access to the most up to date modelling results to assess the extent of flooding from the watercourse.  An unnamed watercourse is shown to be largely culverted throughout the centre of the development site. This has not been modelled due to the broad scale nature of the SFRA modelling. Although no flood risk is shown detailed hydraulic models should be developed to determine the flood risk to any proposed development.  The development site is shown to be within the Environment Agency‟s reservoir flooding map11. Any development in these areas should consider the residual risk from the reservoir.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  The development of sites in this area could potentially increase risk to this area and further downstream through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

11 http://watermaps.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?lang=_e&topic=reservoir&layer=0&x=454500&y=308500&sc ale=10&location=Anstey%2c+Leicestershire#x=454500&y=308500&scale=10

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 79

Table 7-10: Site Summary Table: Sileby Service Centre

OS NGR: 460541 315293 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This Service Centre is one of the seven Service Centres which will provide 200 new homes and seven hectares of employment land (across the Service Centres). The location of development has not yet been decided and will be identified through the later stages of the planning process. Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas that run through the centre of the service centre and along the western boundary. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this service centre by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment. Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at Flood Zone Map: an early stage. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 80

Surface Water Map: SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is fluvial from the River Soar along the western site boundary and from the Sileby Brook flowing through the centre of the proposed development site.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability The majority of the forms of source control would be suitable however; pervious pavements should be non-infiltrating systems due to the Source possible contamination risk from landfill deposits. If infiltration is

Control required further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency is needed.

Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area however; landfill deposits in the localised area make infiltration unsuitable Infiltration without further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  The site is bordered by historic landfill areas. Investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency may be needed to assess the risk of contamination.  Detailed site assessments should be conducted for development sites in this area, to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable. Flood Defences: There is one short flood embankment on the Sileby Brook within the proposed development site. No overtopping of this defence is shown in the Flood Zones or climate change scenario suggesting the defence is currently of an appropriate standard.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 81

Flood Warnings: The site is partially covered by the Lower River Soar in Leicestershire flood alert area. There is currently no flood warning area for this area. Access and Egress: High Street, Brook Street and Mill Lane, as well as some minor roads, are shown to be at risk of flooding, potentially affecting safe access and egress routes. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the River Soar and the Sileby Brook. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  If development is proposed in close vicinity of the Sileby Brook it is recommended that a detailed hydraulic model be developed to determine more accurately the extent of flooding from the watercourses.  Where development takes place in areas protected by flood defences a detailed assessment should be conducted to determine the residual risk from the defences. This would also assist in the sequential approach to the layout of any development and setting finished floor levels per EA guidance.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  The development of sites in this area could potentially increase risk to this area and further downstream through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 82

Table 7-11: Site Summary Table: Quorn Service Centre

OS NGR: 455946 316551 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This Service Centre is one of the seven Service Centres which will provide 200 new homes and seven hectares of employment land (across the Service Centres). The location of development has not yet been decided and will be identified through the later stages of the planning process. Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas predominately through the centre, along the southern boundary and in the northern portion of the service centre. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this service centre by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment. Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at Flood Zone Map: an early stage. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 83

Surface Water Map: SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is fluvial from the River Soar along the northern and eastern site boundary. There is also flood risk from two additional watercourses. The first, Poultney Brook, flows through the centre of the site and the Quorn Brook flows along part of the southern site boundary.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability Source All forms of source control are likely to be suitable Control Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques suitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Detailed site assessments should be conducted for development sites in this area, to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable. Flood Defences: There are a series of flood walls & embankments along the Quorn Brook and along the River Soar, within the proposed development site. The Environment Agency‟s NaFRA mapping (Figure 9-13) shows the risk to the area behind these defences as Low (chance of flooding of between 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) and 1 in 100 (1%)) or Medium (chance of flooding of between 1 in 100 (1%) and 1 in 30 (3.3%)). Overtopping of these defences is shown in Flood Zone 3a and in the climate change scenario, suggesting work may required to raise the defences to an acceptable standard.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 84

Flood Warnings: The site is partially covered by the Lower River Soar in Leicestershire flood alert area and the River Soar at Quorn flood warning area. Access and Egress: School Lane and Soar Road are shown to be at risk of flooding, potentially affecting safe access and egress routes. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the River Soar, Poultney Brook and Quorn Brook. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  A section of the Poultney Brook is shown to be culverted throughout the development site. This has not been modelled due to the broad scale nature of the SFRA modelling. Although no flood risk is shown detailed hydraulic models should be developed to determine the flood risk to any proposed development.  Where development takes place in areas protected by flood defences a detailed assessment should be conducted to determine the residual risk from the defences. This would also assist in the sequential approach to the layout of any development and setting finished floor levels per EA guidance.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  The development of sites in this area could potentially increase risk to this area and further downstream through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 85

Table 7-12: Site Summary Table: Syston Service Centre

OS NGR: 462420 311377 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This Service Centre is one of the seven Service Centres which will provide 200 new homes and seven hectares of employment land (across the Service Centres). The location of development has not yet been decided and will be identified through the later stages of the planning process. Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas that run through the centre of the service centre and along the northern boundary. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this service centre by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment. Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at Flood Zone Map: an early stage. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 86

Surface Water Map: SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is fluvial from the River Wreake, River Soar and the Barkby Brook. The River Wreake flows along the northern site boundary, the River Soar flows along the western site boundary and the Barkby Brook flows through the centre of the proposed development site.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability Source All forms of source control are likely to be suitable Control Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques suitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Detailed site assessments should be conducted for development sites in this area, to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences located within this site. Flood Warnings: The site is partially covered by the River Wreake in Leicestershire flood alert area and the River Wreake at Syston flood warning area. Access and Egress: Parts of Glebe Way, Fosse Way and Melton Road are shown to be at risk of flooding, as well as some minor roads, potentially affecting safe access and egress routes.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 87

Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the River Wreake, River Soar and the Barkby Brook. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  If development is proposed in close vicinity of the Barkby Brook it is recommended that a detailed hydraulic model be developed to determine more accurately the extent of flooding from the watercourse.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  The development of sites in this area could potentially increase risk to this area and further downstream through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 88

Table 7-13: Site Summary Table: Barrow upon Soar Service Centre

OS NGR: 457851 317530 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This Service Centre is one of the seven Service Centres which will provide 200 new homes and seven hectares of employment land (across the Service Centres). The location of development has not yet been decided and will be identified through the later stages of the planning process. Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas that run through the centre of the service centre. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this service centre by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment.  Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at Flood Zone Map: an early stage. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 89

Surface Water Map: SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is fluvial from the River Soar flowing along the western boundary of the proposed development site. There is also flood risk from the Fishpool Brook through a small eastern portion of the proposed development site.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability The majority of the forms of source control would be suitable however; pervious pavements should be non-infiltrating systems due to the Source possible contamination risk from landfill deposits. If infiltration is

Control required further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency is needed.

Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area however; landfill deposits in the localised area make infiltration unsuitable Infiltration without further investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  The site is bordered by historic landfill areas. Investigation and consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency may be needed to assess the risk of contamination.  Detailed site assessments should be conducted for development sites in this area, to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable. Flood Defences: There is an embankment along a short section of the Fishpool Brook. No overtopping of this defence is shown in the Flood Zones or climate change scenario suggesting the defence is currently of an appropriate standard. 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 90

Flood Warnings: No flood alerts or warnings currently cover this area. Access and Egress: Barrow Road is shown to be at risk of flooding. However, there are a number of alternative routes that may provide safe access and egress. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels in the River Soar and Fishpool Brook. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  If development is proposed in close vicinity of the Fishpool Brook it is recommended that a detailed hydraulic model be developed to determine more accurately the extent of flooding from the both watercourses.  A number of reaches of watercourse are shown to be culverted throughout the development site. This has not been modelled due to the broad scale nature of the SFRA modelling. Although no flood risk is shown detailed hydraulic models should be developed to determine the flood risk to any proposed development.  Where development takes place in areas protected by flood defences a detailed assessment should be conducted to determine the residual risk from the defences. This would also assist in the sequential approach to the layout of any development and setting finished floor levels per EA guidance.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  The development of sites in this area could potentially increase risk to this area and further downstream through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 91

Table 7-14: Site Summary Table: Mountsorrel Service Centre

OS NGR: 458498 312858 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This Service Centre is one of the seven Service Centres which will provide 200 new homes and seven hectares of employment land (across the Service Centres). The location of development has not yet been decided and will be identified through the later stages of the planning process. Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas that run along the eastern boundary. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this service centre by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment.  Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at Flood Zone Map: an early stage. FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 92

Surface Water Map: SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is fluvial from the River Soar which flows along the eastern boundary of the proposed development site.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site and from adjacent developments.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability Source All forms of source control are likely to be suitable Control Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques suitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Detailed site assessments should be conducted for development sites in this area, to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences located within this site. Flood Warnings: The site is partially covered by the Lower River Soar in Leicestershire Flood Alert Area and the River Soar at Mountsorrel flood warning area. Access and Egress: Sileby Road, leading away from the development is at risk of flooding. However, there are a number of alternative routes that would provide safe access and egress in the event of a flood. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities. 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 93

 Increased water levels in the River Soar. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. New infrastructure should be designed to not increase flood risk.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  It is recommended that the EA be contacted to check whether any models currently exist for the watercourse and ensure the most up to date modelling is used to assess the extent of flooding from the watercourse.  A number of reaches of watercourse are shown to be culverted throughout the development site. This has not been modelled due to the broad scale nature of the SFRA modelling. Although no flood risk is shown detailed hydraulic models should be developed to determine the flood risk to any proposed development  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  The development of sites in this area could potentially increase risk to this area and further downstream through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 94

Table 7-15: Site Summary Table: Rothley Service Centre

OS NGR: 458498 312858 Brown/Greenfield: Brownfield Proposed Development Details: This Service Centre is one of the seven Service Centres which will provide 200 new homes and seven hectares of employment land (across the Service Centres). The location of development has not yet been decided and will be identified through the later stages of the planning process. Exception Test required? Yes, for Essential infrastructure development in FZ3b, Essential infrastructure and More Vulnerable in FZ3a and Highly Vulnerable developments in FZ2. Highly Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3a. Highly Vulnerable, More Vulnerable and Less Vulnerable infrastructure should not be permitted within FZ3b. Requirements for passing the Exception Test:  To pass Part „b‟ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and will reduce flood risk. An FRA will be required for all sites at flood risk or sites over 1ha in size.  Preference should be given to locating development outside of flooded areas that run through the centre of the service centre. It should be possible to reduce flood risk at this service centre by using sequential design to locate development in Flood Zone 1, through building design and by meeting drainage requirements. Development needs to ensure that no increase in flood risk occurs either within the site or elsewhere within the catchment.  Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at Flood Zone Map: an early stage FloodProposed Zone DevelopmentMap: Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3b Local Authority Boundary Flood Zone 3a Flood Zone 3b Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 2 right 2014

Climate Change:

ClimateProposed Change: Development Area Local Authority Boundary Proposed Development Area Flood Zone 3 with Climate Change Local Authority Boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyrightFlood and databaseZone 3 with right Climate 2014 Change

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 95

Surface Water Map: SurfaceProposed Water Development Map: Area

ProposedLocal Authority Development Boundary Area LocaluFMfSW Authority 30-year Boundary Extent uFMfSW 30-year100-year Extent Extent uFMfSW 100-year1000-year Extent Extent This mapuFMfSW gives an 1000-yearindication of Extent the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding. It is not suitable for use at an individual property scale due to the method used. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Sources of Flood Risk:  Primary flood risk is fluvial from the Rothley Brook which flows through the centre of the proposed development site and along the southern site boundary.  Additional flood risk is from surface water flooding and overland flows generated within the proposed development site.  With further development and creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water flooding may become a problem. SuDS and the development site: Potential SuDS Type Comments Suitability Source All forms of source control are likely to be suitable Control Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques suitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. Liner is Detention required for permanent wet features in pervious soils. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and Filtration the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes Conveyance are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows.

 The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.  Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Commercial developments should provide at two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment.  Detailed site assessments should be conducted for development sites in this area, to further determine the SuDS features that are likely to be suitable. Flood Defences: There is a series of flood walls and embankments along the Rothley Brook, within the proposed development site. The Environment Agency‟s NaFRA mapping shows the risk to the area behind these defences as Low (chance of flooding of between 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) and 1 in 100 (1%)). Overtopping of these defences is shown in Flood Zone 3a and in the climate change scenario, suggesting work may required to raise the defences to an acceptable standard. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Rothley Brook in Leicestershire Flood Alert Area and the Rothley Brook at Rothley flood warning area.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 96

Access and Egress: Parts of Town Green Street, Anthony Street, Hallfields Lane and Fowke Street are shown to be at risk from flooding, potentially affecting safe access and egress using these routes. Effects of Climate Change:  Increased storm intensities.  Increased water levels and risk of flooding from Rothley Brook. Flood Risk Implications for Development:  All development should be located within Flood Zone 1, unless appropriate in accordance with NPPF Planning Practice Guidance. Also new infrastructure should be designed so that there is no increase flood risk in regions within Flood Zones 2 and 3 during large rainfall events.  A site specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development in FZ 2 and 3, and any development greater than 1ha in FZ1.  It is recommended that the EA be contacted to check whether any models currently exist for the watercourse and ensure the most up to date modelling is used to assess the extent of flooding from the watercourse.  Where development takes place in areas protected by flood defences a detailed assessment should be conducted to determine the residual risk from the defences. This would also assist in the sequential approach to the layout of any development and setting finished floor levels per EA guidance.  Demonstration that development at this location can be made safe.  Developers should review existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure safe access and egress is possible during a 100-year plus climate change event, and consider any implications the development may have on the drainage of existing infrastructure.  Surface water mapping shows some areas are at risk from surface water. The development of sites in this area could potentially increase risk to this area or downstream through increased runoff. Therefore the following should be considered. o New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post- development runoff. o Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. o New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site for example by: . Reducing volume and rate of runoff . Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk . Creating space for flooding. o Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. o Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development and consider using Flood Zones 2 and 3 as public open space. For guidance or updated strategies, developers should refer to The 6C‟s Green Infrastructure Strategy – http://www.riverneneregionalpark.org/default.asp?PageID=192

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 97

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 98

8 Flood risk from canals and reservoirs

8.1 Introduction The only canal within the Charnwood Borough is the Grand Union Canal. The Grand Union Canal stretches from London to Birmingham for approximately 137 miles with a total of 166 locks. The section of the Grand Union Canal that flows through the Charnwood Borough flows from north to south and follows the route of the River Soar. For large parts of the reach through the Charnwood Borough the Grand Union Canal is indistinguishable from the River Soar, breaking off to form separate reaches at only a few locations. Along the course of the Grand Union Canal there are numerous locations where watercourses either run adjacent or underneath the canal. The interaction between the canal and a series of watercourses in and around eastern Loughborough is very complex. For example the area of Loughborough known as Loughborough Wharf is adjacent to the Wood Brook and has a number of interconnected overflow channels at this location. Other watercourses such as the Hermitage and Grammar School Brooks also link to the canal at this location. During times of high flows, the canal can act as an additional flow route and pose a significant risk of flooding in Loughborough.

8.2 Flood risk from canals Canals do not generally pose a direct flood risk as they are regulated water bodies. The residual risk from canals tends to be associated with lower probability events such as overtopping and embankment failure. The residual risk associated with canals is more difficult to determine as it depends on a number of factors including, for example the source and magnitude of surface water runoff into the canal, the size of the canal, construction materials and level of maintenance. The probability of a breach is managed by continued maintenance. In the Loughborough area flood risk from the canals is more complicated with parts of the Grand Union Canal indistinguishable from the River Soar. This means in certain locations high water levels in the River Soar can have a direct impact on the water levels in the canal, causing water to back up and increase the risk of overtopping. There are also complex interactions between a number of watercourses such as the Hermitage and Grammar School Brooks and the canal which can impact on flood risk in the local area. This SFRA does not assess the probability of failure other than noting that such events are very rare. However, in accordance with NPPF, all sources of flooding need to be considered. If a breach event were to occur then the consequences, to people and property, could be high. Developers should be aware that any site that is at or below canal bank level may be subject to canal flooding and this should be taken into account when building resilience into low level properties. According to Leicestershire County Council PFRA, there are only two known flooding events involving the canal within Leicestershire. These were located in Bottesford and Melton Mowbray where water backed up within the canals or culverts associated with the canals. Both of these locations are outside of the Charnwood Borough boundary. No historic breaches or overtopping events have been reported by Canal and River Trust as part of the PFRA. The PFRA also highlighted that Loughborough town centre is potentially vulnerable to flooding from the canal if culverts are blocked or if there is insufficient capacity to convey runoff from significant rainfall events causing floodwaters to back up. The canal is also thought to be a flow path for higher flood levels in the River Soar upstream of Loughborough into central Loughborough.

8.2.1 Implications for development in Charnwood Borough The complexity of the role of the canal on flood risk in the area highlights the importance of understanding the interactions of the canal and main rivers to understanding flood risk. Any development within the vicinity of the canal will require further, detailed assessment to take account of site specific risks both current and in the future. Additionally, inundation from a canal breach should be included in detailed, site specific, FRAs. This should be based on a more detailed appreciation of the hazard and implication during a flood emergency.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 99

Development of any sites adjacent to the canal will need to consider residual risk as part of a detailed FRA. Any development should be set back eight metres from the canal, providing a buffer strip to „make space for water‟ and to allow access for maintenance or repair should it be required.

8.3 Flood risk from reservoirs The risk of inundation to Charnwood Borough as a result of reservoir breach or failure of a number of reservoirs within the area was assessed as part of the National Inundation Reservoir Maps (NRIM) study. Reservoirs whose inundation mapping is shown to affect Charnwood Borough are detailed in Table 8-1 (reservoirs located within Charnwood Borough are highlighted in blue). Table 8-1: Reservoirs in the vicinity of Charnwood Borough

Location Reservoir Environment Local Reservoir (grid reference) owner Agency area authority Scalford Brook Reservoir 475789 320492 Brentingby Flood Storage 477416 318706 Reservoir Environment Frisby Lake 469717 318331 Agency Dakyn Road Flood Storage 463764 304841 Reservoir Knighton Park FSR 460760 300361 Groby Pool 452393 307911 Hanson plc Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire Leicestershire Central East Area 445759 325484 Nottingham East and County Balancing Pond Midlands Airport Leicestershire Council EMA Gimbo Ponds 443658 325275 Ltd Area Swithland 455685 314864 Thornton 447316 307258

Cropston 455027 311160 Severn Trent Hallgates No. 4 453291 311464 Water Blackbrook 445764 317794 Nanpantan 450832 317155

Reservoir flooding is very different from other forms of flooding. It may happen with little or no warning and evacuation will need to happen immediately. The likelihood of such flooding is very difficult to estimate, but it is less likely than flooding from rivers or surface water. It may not be possible to seek refuge from floodwaters upstairs as buildings could be unsafe or unstable due to the force of water from the reservoir breach or failure. The Environment Agency maps represent a credible worst case scenario. In these circumstances it is the time to inundation, the depth of inundation, the duration of flooding and the velocity of flood flows that will be most influential. This information is not made available to the public. The risk to development for reservoirs is residual but developers should consider reservoir flooding during the planning stage.  Developers should seek to contact the reservoir owner to obtain information which may include o Reservoir characteristics: type, dam height at outlet, area/volume, overflow location o Operation: discharge rates / maximum discharge o Discharge during emergency drawdown o Inspection / maintenance regime

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 100

 Developers should apply the sequential approach to locating development within the site. The following questions should be considered: o Can risk be avoided through substituting less vulnerable uses or by amending the site lay-out? o Can it be demonstrated that less vulnerable uses for the site have been considered and reasonably discounted? o Can layout be varied to reduce the number of people or flood risk vulnerability or building units located in higher risk parts of the site?  Consult with relevant authorities regarding emergency plans in case of reservoir breach

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 101

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 102

9 Flood defences and critical structures

9.1 Flood defences The Charnwood SFRA presents the risk of flooding from watercourses across the borough. It focuses on those areas at greater risk, where strategic development sites have been proposed by the council. The river modelling that has been developed for the SFRA is of a strategic nature. Detailed studies should seek to refine the understanding of flood risk from all sources where a specific site risk assessment is required. Consideration of residual risk behind flood defences has been undertaken as part of this study. The residual risk of flooding in an extreme flood event or from failure of defences should also be considered carefully. The condition of existing flood defences and whether they will continue to be maintained and/or improved in the future is an issue that needs to be considered as part of the risk based sequential approach and in the light of this, whether proposed land allocations are appropriate and sustainable. In addition, detailed Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs) will need to explore the condition of defences thoroughly, especially where these defences are informal and contain a wide variation of condition grades. It is important that all of these assets are maintained in a good condition. Developers should consider the standard of protection provided by defences and residual risk as part of a detailed flood risk assessment. A review of key defences across the borough and their condition has been discussed in Section 3.4.2. The following locations have been assessed as part of this SFRA.  Flood defences on the River Soar at Thurmaston  Flood defences on the Rothley Brook at Rothley  Flood defences on the River Soar at Quorn  Flood defences on the Black Brook at Loughborough  Third party flood defences on the River Soar at northern Loughborough

The results of these assessments are discussed in the following sections.

9.1.1 Flood Deference at Thurmaston Figure 9-1 shows the flood defences to the west of Melton Road. The flood defences in this location are a combination of embankments and flood walls which have a SoP of 1 in 100-years. The modelled 100-year defended flood event is shown to be contained behind the flood defences protecting Melton Road and the surround properties.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 103

Figure 9-1: 100-year Undefended & Defended Flood Outlines at Thurmaston

In regards to future flood risk, Figure 9-2 shows the 100-year plus climate change flood outline at the Thurmaston flood defences. The flood defences are shown not to overtop during this scenario with no significant increase in flood extent compared to the 100-year (defended) return period.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 104

Figure 9-2: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline at Thurmaston

9.1.2 Flood Defences at Rothley Figure 9-3 shows the flood defences along the Rothley Brook. The flood defences in this location are a combination of embankments and flood walls which have a SoP of 1 in 100-years. The modelled 100-year defended flood event is shown to be contained behind the flood defences protecting Town Green and the surround properties. Although the area benefitting from these defences is shown not to have any flooded residential properties flood water is in extreme close proximity to buildings.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 105

Figure 9-3: 100-year Undefended & Defended Flood Outlines at Rothley

In regards to future flood risk, Figure 9-4 shows the 100-year plus climate change flood outline at the Rothley flood defences. The flood defences are shown not to overtop during this scenario with no significant increase in flood extent compared to the 100-year (defended) return period. Not additional properties are flooded during the 100-year plus climate change defended scenario.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 106

Figure 9-4: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline at Rothley

9.1.3 Flood Defences at Quorn Figure 9-5 shows the flood defences at Quorn which are located along the River Soar and an unnamed tributary. The flood defences in this location are a combination of embankments and flood walls which have a SoP of 1 in 100-years. Comparing the modelled defended and undefended outlines, it is seen that the presence of the flood defences reduces the impact of flooding behind the defences. However, water is still shown to overtop the defences at various locations during the 100-year defended modelled event, suggesting that the SoP might be less than 100-year detailed in Environment Agency records. It should be noted that it is unclear whether the flooding within northern Quorn is a result of overtopping of defences or from flooding further upstream from the River Soar and a series of drainage channels. In regards to future flood risk, Figure 9-6 shows the 100-year plus climate change flood outline at the Quorn flood defences. There is extensive flooding behind the flood defence although this may be attributed to flood waters being conveyed from further upstream on the River Soar via field drains into northern Quorn

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 107

Figure 9-5: 100-year Defended and Undefended Flood Outlines at Quorn

Figure 9-6: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline at Quorn

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 108

9.1.4 Flood Defences on the Black Brook Figure 9-7 shows the flood defences on the Black Brook in northern Loughborough. The flood defences in this location are a combination of embankments along both sides of the Black Brook running up to Derby Road. The defences according to EA records have a SoP of 1 in 100-years. The modelled 100-year defended scenario shows flooding behind the defences along the left bank from Maxwell Drive to Derby Road. Although flooding is behind the defences it is unlikely this is caused from overtopping of the defences in this location but rather from a branch of the Black Brook which separates from the main channel in the vicinity of Maxwell Drive and rejoins the Black Brook upstream of Derby Road. This suggests that consideration should be made to provide defences for this part of the channel to protect the adjacent residential developments. Without the presence of the defences a further 70 residential properties would be flooded during the 100-year flood event. These properties are mainly located in the vicinity of this branched channel of the Black Brook discussed above. Figure 9-7: 100-year Defended and Undefended Flood Outlines on the Black Brook

In regards to future flood risk, Figure 9-8 shows the 100-year plus climate change flood outline at the Black Brook flood defences. There is an increase in flooding behind the defences in residential area although this is not a significant increase with only small number of extra resident properties being affected.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 109

Figure 9-8: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline on the Black Brook

9.1.5 Flood Defence in North Loughborough Figure 9-9 shows third party flood defences on Grand Union Canal in northern Loughborough. The flood defences in this location are a combination of embankments and flood walls along the right bank of the Grand Union Canal as it flows adjacent to the industrial estate. The defences according to EA records have a SoP of 1 in 100-years. The modelled 100-year defended scenario shows flooding behind the defences at this location which is likely to be caused by out of bank flow further downstream past the defences which follows the local topography into the industrial estate. In regards to future flood risk, Figure 9-10 shows the 100-year plus climate change flood outline at the north Loughborough flood defences. There is an increase in flooding behind the defences as flooding overtops the flood defences at this location. The main impact of the 100-year plus climate change flood event is that a larger proportion of the industrial estate becomes inundated. No additional residential properties are flooded in this area. As these are third party defences erected to defence the site, they belong to the owner of the site. Maintenance of the defences to their existing standard is dependent on the owners of the site.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 110

Figure 9-9: 100-year Defended and Undefended Flood Outline in North Loughborough

Figure 9-10: 100-year plus Climate Change Defended Flood Outline in North Loughborough

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 111

9.1.6 National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) mapping Flood defences reduce, but do not completely remove, the risk of flooding. They are built to withstand a flood of a certain magnitude but can be overtopped or fail either in extreme weather conditions or due to poor condition. The National Flood Risk Assessment gives an indication, at a national level, of the likelihood, and consequences, of areas of land flooding from fluvial sources. The likelihood of flooding has been calculated using predicted water levels and taking the location, type and condition of any flood defences into account. The NaFRA maps do not include other forms of flooding such as from highway drains, sewers, overland flow or rising groundwater. The mapping is classified into four different classes for likelihood of flooding. These classes are shown in Table 9-1. Table 9-1: NaFRA classifications

NaFRA Class Description These areas have a chance of flooding of less than 1 Very Low in 1,000 (0.1%). These areas have a chance of flooding of between 1 Low in 1,000 (0.1%) and 1 in 100 (1%). These areas have a chance of flooding of between 1 Medium in 100 (1%) and 1 in 30 (3.3%). These areas have a chance of flooding of greater High than 1 in 30 (3.3%).

The following set of maps show the NaFRA mapping for the key areas of Charnwood Borough protected by flood defences identified in Sections 9.1.1 to 9.1.5. Figure 9-11: NaFRA mapping at Thurmaston

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 112

Figure 9-12: NaFRA mapping at Rothley

Figure 9-13: NaFRA mapping at Quorn

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 113

Figure 9-14: NaFRA mapping along the Black Brook

Figure 9-15: NaFRA mapping at North Loughborough

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 114

9.2 ‘Critical Structures’ In addition to the Environment Agency‟s formal flood defence assets, there are other flood risk management (FRM) measures in place in the borough. These include:  Council owned assets  Environment Agency Flood Warning Areas (FWAs)  Critical structures such as bridges, weirs, culverts and trash screens which may affect local hydraulics and flood risk.

9.2.1 Designation of features/structures Under the FWMA 2010 EA, LLFAs, district councils, the EA and internal drainage boards have legal powers to “designate” structures and features that affect flood or coastal erosion risk (whether or not it was originally intended to do so) and are not directly maintained by these organisations. A designation is a legally binding notice served by the designating authority on the owner of the feature and will automatically apply to anyone dealing with the land and to successive owners or occupiers of a particular property of parcel of land12 Four conditions must be satisfied to enable a structure or feature to be designated. These are outlined in Table 9-2. If any of the four conditions cannot be met than designation is not possible. Should a feature/structure be designated the owner should be able to continue to use the structure/feature. They may also alter, remove or replace the structure of feature providing they have the prior consent of the designating authority. Table 9-2: Designation conditions

Condition

The designating authority thinks the existence of the structure 1 or feature affects a flood or coastal erosion (or both) risk. The designating authority has flood or coastal erosion risk 2 management functions in respect of the risk being affected. The structure or feature is not already designated by another 3 designating authority. The owner of the structure or feature is not a designating 4 authority.

The following factors should also be considered12.  An assessment of flood or coastal risk associated with the structure/feature in terms of the consequences of its alteration, removal or replacement.  Consider the general circumstances of the owner of the structure/feature. (A designating authority may reach an agreement with a third party, with respect to flood risk management, without recourse to a designation.) o If the designating authority is confident that the owner is aware of the flood or coastal erosion risk management function that their structure/feature serves then designation may not be relevant o If the designating authority is confident that the management, use or treatment of the structure/feature does not give rise to adverse risks then designation may not be relevant.  Assess the vulnerability of the structure/feature to change or damage  Assess any need for emergency repairs by the owner or intervention by the designating authority.

12 Information Note: Designation of structures and features for flood and coastal erosion risk management purposes (Defra, July 2012) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 115

Further information on the designating of structures and features can be found in the Defra Information Note: Designation of structures and features for flood and coastal erosion risk management purposes (July 2012).

9.2.2 Critical structures within Charnwood Borough As part of the SFRA, we have prepared an outline assessment of critical structures which may affect flood risk. In additional to railways embankments and culverts under roads within the Borough, critical structures identified in the SFRA include:  The embankment of the disused railway south of Garendon Park which potentially holds back flood water from the Shortcliff Brook and diverts the flood water eastwards towards Loughborough.  The culvert under the track to Burton Bandalls Farm. Water from the un-named drain may back up behind this culvert.  The culvert under Main Street, Barkby. Water from the Barkby Brook may back up behind this culvert. It is recommended that the ownership of these structures is identified to determine whether they are owned by a designating authority. Designation is not possible on any structures owned by a designating authority. For any of the structures/features not owned by a designating authority it is recommended the factors outlined in Section 9.2.1 above should be considered and a more detailed assessment be prepared, if required. The resolution of the assessment possible for the SFRA is less than that required to identify all appropriate features.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 116

10 Critical Drainage Areas

10.1 Introduction The Town and Country Planning Order 2006 defines Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs) as “an area within Flood Zone 1 which has critical drainage problems and which has been notified...[to]...the local planning authority by the Environment Agency”. However, the Environment Agency Standing Advice also recognises the part that SFRAs play in identifying areas with potential drainage problems and in doing so highlighting areas that need a FRA to consider drainage in detail. Certain locations are particularly sensitive to an increase in the rate of surface water runoff and or/volume from a new development. There are generally known local flooding problems associated with these areas. A broad scale assessment of these areas has been undertaken in the SFRA, and possible CDAs suggested. Specific drainage requirements may be required in these areas to help reduce local flood risk. These are areas with possible complex surface water flooding problems that would benefit from further assessment. If these areas were to be brought forward as a CDA, a Surface Water Management Plan and subsequent drainage strategy may be required. The SFRA has suggested possible Critical Drainage Areas where: 1. There is a high risk of localised flooding from ordinary watercourses including culverts surcharging and overland surface water flows, including the potential for flooding from the sewer network due to failure/blockage or exceedance events when the storm return period is greater than the sewer was designed for, or 2. Where there are areas of significant redevelopment planned that could have a significant impact on surface water runoff to local watercourses and the sewer network. Broad scale screening for CDAs within the Charnwood Borough area was undertaken using data from the following sources:  Past flooding information from the Leicestershire PFRA  The updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW)  An assessment of properties at risk based on the uFMfSW  Severn Trent Water DG5 register The past flooding information was analysed to help identify any possible CDAs throughout the borough. It was assumed that where a historical record exceeded an eight metre distance from a watercourse, the event was presumed to be from surface water runoff or by exceeding sewer capacities. Severn Trent Water provided historical flooding records from this SFRA. Details of the sewer network were not available for use in the assessment. The sewer network can have a significant impact on the location of surface water and sewer flooding for more frequent events. It can also affect the distribution of water throughout urban catchments during flood events, passing excess flows from the combined network into watercourses through combined sewer overflows.

10.2 Critical Drainage Areas Using the available data describe in Section 10.1, possible CDAs have been identified as part of the SFRA and are detailed in Table 10-1 and Figure 10-1. It is seen that without risk based information for sewer networks the possible CDAs cover an extensive area. Sewer network details such as sewer capacities and drainage direction would help verify and refine CDAs. The possible CDAs identified in the SFRA should be confirmed and refined over time as more detailed information on flood risk and local flood management assets, including Severn Trent Drainage Areas and sewered catchments, becomes available. In addition it should be noted that the identification of possible CDAs utilised existing historic flooding data including the DG5 register. These datasets only include reported and known flooding events. There may have been other flood events within the borough that are not included in these datasets and therefore were unavailable for this analysis. The CDAs

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 117

suggested here should therefore only be taken as a starting point in the identification of CDAs and for areas for which a SWMP would be beneficial.

Table 10-1: Possible Critical Drainage Areas Possible Critical Drainage Reason Area  Reported sewer and surface water flooding incidents.  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Anstey surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Birstall surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Bramcote Lane, Loughborough surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Cossington surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Hathern surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Manor Road, Thurmaston surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  Reported sewer and surface water flooding incidents.  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Nanpantan Road, Loughborough surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Shelthorpe, Loughborough surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Syston surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register  SFRA analysis showed that this area is shown to be affected by Thorpe Acre, Loughborough surface water flooding.  Properties shown as affected in DG5 register

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 118

Figure 10-1: Critical Drainage Areas – North Charnwood Borough

Figure 10-2: Critical Drainage Areas – South Charnwood Borough

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 119

10.2.1 Recommendation for Surface Water Management Under the FWMA county councils and unitary authorities are responsible for a leadership role in local flood risk management, of which the production of a SWMP may be required. However, unitary and county local authorities can delegate the production of a SWMP to a lower tier. A SWMP is undertaken in consultation with key local partners who are responsible for surface water management and drainage in their area. Leicestershire County Council, as the lead for local flood risk management, should co-ordinate any future surface water management work. The Defra Surface Water Management Plan Guidance (2010) supports the use of SFRAs in providing the evidence base for where SWMPs are required. Currently a SWMP is being completed for Loughborough by Leicestershire County Council although at the time of this report had not been publicly released. Charnwood Borough Council, the Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and Leicestershire County Council should work closely together, using the outputs from the SWMP and the SFRA to identify any requirement for other potential locations for SWMPs or where there is a high priority to investigate the impact of surface water on an area. They should identify particular hotspots where surface water solutions can be identified or more detailed modelling is needed. Surface water management needs to take a holistic approach, taking into account all the sources of local flood risk, including from sewers, overland flow, culverted and open watercourses and groundwater. A suite of options are available for surface water management including source control, such as the implementation of SuDS, increasing the capacity of sewers or watercourses, storing excess water and managing exceedance flows through urban design and "Green Infrastructure". SWMPs provide the opportunity to undertake detailed sewer modelling and pool together the knowledge and understanding from different organisations to help assess options to reduce surface water flood risk to new and existing development. Where possible there should be an integrated solution for managing surface water across development sites. This is best investigated further through a Drainage Strategy during the detailed FRA stage. Such solutions can provide great benefits besides water management, including providing recreational facilities, improving biodiversity and making communities a better place to live. Where there are several sites that would share a communal facility, such sites may be funded through developer Section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy payments. Drainage Strategies can be particularly useful for considering, recommending the implementation of, and long term management arrangements for, SuDS and setting appropriate runoff rates from new development.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 120

11 Green Infrastructure and Water Framework Directive

11.1 Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure (GI) is a planned and managed network of natural environmental components and green spaces that intersperse and connect the urban centres, suburbs and rural fringe and consist of:  Open spaces – parks, woodland, nature reserves, lakes  Linkages – River corridors and canals, and pathways, cycle routes and greenways  Networks of “urban green” – private gardens, street trees, verges and green roofs.

The identification and planning of Green Infrastructure is critical to sustainable growth. It merits forward planning and investment as much as other socio-economic priorities such as health, transport, education and economic development. GI is also central to climate change action and is a recurring theme in planning policy. With regards to flood risk, green spaces can be used to manage storm flows and free up water storage capacity in existing infrastructure to reduce risk of damage to urban property, particularly in city centres and vulnerable urban regeneration areas. Green infrastructure can also improve accessibility to waterways and improve water quality, supporting regeneration and improving opportunity for leisure, economic activity and biodiversity.

11.1.1 The 6 ‘C’s Green Infrastructure Strategy (2010) The 6 „C‟s sub-region includes the three cities of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham and the three counties of Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. A Green Infrastructure Strategy for the sub-region was published in 2010, with the aim to provide a GI Strategy to „help inspire stakeholder involvement, and focus action on the ground where it is most needed and would achieve most benefit‟. Volume 5 of the Green Infrastructure Strategy covers the Charnwood Borough; it includes two key sub-regional corridors that were identified and that reflect significant wildlife habitat corridors/areas that link with strategic GI in surrounding areas – the Soar Strategic River Corridor and the Wreake Strategic River Corridor. The following key opportunities for delivering GI benefits were identified for both of these sub- regional corridors13  Access and movement – potential to establish traffic free multi-user greenways, linking communities and Strategic GI assets  Biodiversity – potential opportunities for river corridor habitat management, creation, restoration and extension  Natural processes – potential opportunities to manage flood risk through appropriate land management  Cultural heritage – potential opportunities to enhance the management, presentation, accessibility and interpretation of historic environmental assets  Landscape – potential opportunities to enhance the character and distinctiveness of the landscape

11.1.2 River Soar and Grand Union Canal Strategy The emerging River Soar and Grand Union Canal strategy provides an assessment of the current position, issues and future opportunities for River Soar and Grand Union Canal, recommending a series of short to medium term actions to secure a successful long-term future for the Waterway14.

13 6 Cs Green Infrastructure Strategy Volume 5: Strategic GI Network for the Leicester Principal Urban Area and Sub- Regional Centres (2010) 14 Leicestershire County Council (http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/environment/countryside/environment_management/river_soar_strategy.htm) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 121

Chaired by the Leicester City Mayor, the partnership comprises representatives of the public authorities, statutory bodies and charitable and voluntary organisations along the corridor from the confluence of the River Soar with the River Trent, down to Kilby Bridge south of Leicester. The running of the River Soar/Grand Union Canal Partnership is jointly between Leicester City and Leicestershire County Council14.

11.1.3 Re-wilding the River Soar Valley The Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust is working to restore wildlife and wild places to the floodplains of the Soar and Wreake as part of a Living Landscape scheme. The Trust‟s goal is to enable the floodplain to function more naturally, which has huge benefits for nature and for people15. The Trust has acquired over 350 acres of land on the Soar floodplain since 2004, offered advice to landowners and carried out extensive habitat restoration work, centred on Cossington Meadows nature reserve15. In 2011-12 the Trust surveyed the River Soar through Leicester and its associated green spaces. The survey showed that the river forms a vital link with the river valley to the north and south of the city, facilitating species movement between fragmented habitats within and beyond the urban area15.

11.1.4 Using SFRA data to support GI Strategies The evidence base provided in this SFRA should be used to help inform the Green Infrastructure strategy for the Borough. River corridors identified as functional floodplains are an excellent linkage of GI and can provide storage during a flood event. Areas identified within the urban environment or upstream of a critical surface water flood area should be incorporated into council GI strategies. Opening up land to create flow paths or flood storage areas can help protect current and future property. In certain circumstances runoff from green space can cause flooding in developed areas. This should be considered through further detailed work in a Surface Water Management Plan.

11.2 Water Framework Directive The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a piece of European water legislation that is designed to improve and integrate the way waterbodies are managed throughout Europe. The WFD was transposed into law in England and Wales by the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 200316. The Directive requires that Environmental Objectives be set for all surface and ground waters in England and Wales to enable them to achieve Good Status (or Good Ecological Potential for Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies) by a defined date. These Environmental Objectives are listed below:  Prevent deterioration in the status of aquatic ecosystems, protect them and improve the ecological condition of waters.  Aim to achieve at least good status/potential for all water bodies by 2015. Where this is not possible and subject to the criteria set out in the Directive, aim to achieve good status/potential by 2021 or 2027.  Meet the requirements of Water Framework Directive Protected Areas.  Promote sustainable use of water as a natural resource.  Conserve habitats and species that depend directly on water.  Progressively reduce or phase out the release of individual pollutants or groups of pollutants that present a significant threat to the aquatic environment.  Progressively reduce the pollution of groundwater and prevent or limit the entry of pollutants.  Contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.

15 Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust (http://www.lrwt.org.uk/wildlife/living-landscapes) 16 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/3242/contents/made 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 122

In England, the Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for the delivery of the WFD objectives. The EA has produced River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) for the whole of England which describe how the WFD will be achieved. RBMPs set out the ecological objectives for each waterbody and give deadlines by when objectives need to be met. All waterbodies have to achieve Good Ecological Status or Good Ecological Potential (GEP) by a set deadline. GEP is the best ecological improvement that can be achieved for a water body while still enabling Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) works to be undertaken to protect people and property from flooding. The WFD defines the flow, shape and physical characteristics of a watercourse as its „hydromorphology.' Any in-channel works can impact upon the shape of a watercourse and the natural processes that occur within it, including:  flow patterns  width and depth of a channel  features such as pools, riffles, bars and bank slopes  sediment availability/transport  interaction between a channel and its floodplain  ecology and biology (i.e. habitats which support plants and animals)

Any adverse impacts can cause a water body's ecology to deteriorate and prevent environmental improvements from being undertaken. Nevertheless, in-channel works can also be beneficial if they can be designed to help achieve environmental improvements included in the RBMP, thus enhancing the water environment for plants and animals.

11.2.1 Preventing Deterioration in Status Any activity which has the potential to have an impact on the ecology of a waterbody will need consideration in terms of whether it could cause deterioration in its Ecological Status or Potential. For each waterbody, three different status objectives are identified. These are the overall status objective, the ecological status or potential objective and the chemical status objective. A default objective for all water bodies is to prevent the deterioration in the Ecological Status (or Ecological Potential for Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies) of the waterbody. The Ecological Status of a waterbody is determined through analysis of its constituent biological Quality Elements (listed below). These elements are in turn supported by a series of physio- chemical and hydromorphological Quality Elements. These Quality Elements are taken from Annex V of the Directive and are listed below. The overall Ecological Status is determined by the lowest element status. Further details of the method of classification can be found in the Environment Agency‟s Water Framework Directive: Method Statement for the Classification of Surface Water Bodies v3 (2013)17. Biological Quality Elements  Fish  Invertebrates  Macrophytes  Phytobenthos Any activity that has the potential to have an impact upon any of the Quality Elements will need consideration in terms of whether it could cause deterioration in the status of a waterbody. The activity will also need to be considered in terms of whether it will compromise the ability of the waterbody to reach Good Ecological Status or Good Ecological Potential by the date specified in the RBMP.

17 Water Framework Directive: Method Statement for the Classification of Surface Water Bodies v3. (Environment Agency 2013) http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/LIT_5769_ed4e2b.pdf

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 123

A map showing the 2013 overall status of the main water bodies in the Charnwood Borough is provided in Figure 11-1. Note not all the watercourses in the Borough are shown on this map. The majority of the surface water bodies in the Charnwood Borough are classified as „moderate‟ or „poor‟. Only two water bodies in the Borough fall into the „bad‟ category – Syston Brook and King‟s Brook. Future development should ensure there is no adverse impact on the quality of watercourses within the Borough.

11.2.2 Artificial or Heavily Modified Water Bodies Whilst good ecological status is defined as a slight variation from undisturbed natural conditions in natural water bodies, artificial and heavily modified water bodies are unable to achieve natural conditions. Instead, artificial and heavily modified water bodies have a target to achieve Good Ecological Potential, which recognises their important uses, whilst making sure ecology is protected as far as possible. Ecological potential is also measured on the scale high, good, moderate, poor and bad. The chemical status of these water bodies is measured in the same way as for natural water bodies. Specific mitigation measures have been identified for each Artificial and Heavily Modified Waterbody and are listed in the RBMP. These mitigation measures are necessary to reduce the existing hydromorphological impacts on the waterbody and all measures need to be in place in order for the waterbody to achieve Good Ecological Status or Potential.

11.2.3 WFD Assessments An assessment should be undertaken to determine the effects that any proposed works could have upon Quality Elements. Any impacts identified should then be considered in relation to the Ecological, Hydromorphological and Chemical Status of the waterbody and the status objectives. The following assessment objectives should then used to determine whether the proposed works comply with the overarching objectives of the WFD. These objectives were therefore derived from the Environmental Objectives of the Directive  Objective 1: The proposed scheme does not cause deterioration in the Status of the Biological Elements of the waterbody.  Objective 2: The proposed scheme does not compromise the ability of the waterbody to achieve its WFD status objectives.  Objective 3: The proposed scheme does not cause a permanent exclusion or compromised achievement of the WFD objectives in other bodies of water within the same RBD.  Objective 4: The proposed scheme contributes to the delivery of the WFD objectives. In order to establish whether the strategy complies with the WFD it is necessary to ascertain whether the preferred options have the potential to result in:  Failure of a water body to achieve good ecological status or potential; or  Failure to prevent a deterioration in the ecological status or potential of a water body If the answer to these questions is „no‟ the strategy can be considered WFD compliant. If either of these failures is identified, further assessment may be required to identify if the strategy meets all of the conditions set out by the WFD Legislation.

11.2.4 Examples of measures that could be undertaken to improve WFD classification De-Culverting  Opening up buried watercourses and restoring them to more natural conditions  Multiple benefits - both to society and the environment Structure Removal (e.g. Weir) Benefits include  Improved in-channel morphology and sediment transport  Dynamics of flow more natural  Structure of river bed more varied

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 124

Backwater creation  These areas are connected to the main channel and are characterised by slow currents, shallow water and silt substrates. These can be used to improve channel diversity Improved Fish Passage  Installation of structures designed to facilitate and improve the passage of migratory and non-migratory fish where structures cannot be removed.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 125

Figure 11-1: WFD overall classification of surface water bodies in the Charnwood Borough

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 126

12 Guidance for planners and developers

12.1 Over-arching principles The Charnwood Borough SFRA focuses on delivering a strategic assessment of flood risk within the area. Prior to development, site-specific assessments will need to be undertaken to ensure all forms of flood risk at a site are fully addressed. In addition, following the Sequential Test, some sites may be put forward for the Exception Test. These will require further work in a detailed FRA. Any site that does not pass the Exception Test should not be allocated for development. It is normally the responsibility of the developer to provide a FRA with an application. However, a LPA can decide to commission a detailed, site-specific FRA to help them decide upon allocations in the high risk zone. The SFRA cannot provide this level of site- specific information. It should be acknowledged that a detailed FRA may show that a site is not appropriate for development of a particular vulnerability, or at all. Where the FRA shows that a site is not appropriate for a particular usage, a lower vulnerability classification may be appropriate

12.2 Requirements for flood risk assessments The aim of a FRA is to demonstrate that the development is protected to the 1% annual probability event and is safe during the design flood event, including an allowance for climate change. This includes assessment of mitigation measures required to safely manage flood risk. Development proposals requiring FRAs should:  Apply the Sequential and, when necessary, Exception Tests  Not increase flood risk, either upstream or downstream, of the site, taking into account the impacts of climate change  Not increase surface water volumes or peak flow rates, which would result in increased flood risk to the receiving catchments  Use opportunities provided by new development to, where practicable, reduce flood risk within the site and elsewhere  Ensure that where development is necessary in areas of flood risk (after application of Sequential and Exception Tests), it is made safe from flooding for the lifetime of the development, taking into account the impact of climate change  All sources of flood risk, including fluvial, surface water and drainage need to be considered.

FRAs for proposed developments in the Charnwood Borough area should follow the approach recommended by the NPPF and associated guidance, and guidance provided by the Environment Agency.

12.3 Mitigation measures Mitigation measures should be seen as a last resort to address flood risk issues. Consideration should first be given to minimising risk by planning sequentially across a site. Once risk has been minimised, only then should mitigation measures be considered. The fact that mitigation measures are discussed in this SFRA should not be taken as a presumption that the Sequential Test has been bypassed. It is included to give a fuller picture of the implications of allocating a site. Normally, suitable mitigation measures for a proposed development will be determined through assessment of flood depths via hydrological and hydraulic modelling (or use of existing models) carried out as part of a FRA. Often the determining factor in deciding whether a particular development can or cannot proceed is the practical feasibility and financial viability of flood risk mitigation rather than technical limitations. Detailed technical assessments are required in the FRA to assess the practical feasibility, together with a commercial review by the developer of the cost of the mitigation works. At the SFRA stage, broad assumptions are therefore required regarding the feasibility of flood risk mitigation to ensure that only sites with realistic development potential are put forward.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 127

Some mitigation measures were outlined in the previous guidance (PPS25) and are presented in Figure 12-1. It is assumed that floor level raising will continue to be the traditional mitigation measure. It should be noted that the Environment Agency see actual land raising as a last option. Thought will also be required to ensure safe access and egress is available for flood events including climate change. The Emergency Services and local authority should be consulted on the evacuation and rescue capabilities and any advice or requirements included. Figure 12-1: Rationale for flood resilient and/or resistant design strategies

Avoidance Resistance/Resilience**

Design water Design water Design water Design water depth* depth up to 0.3m depth from 0.3m depth above to 0.6m 0.6m

Approach Remove building Attempt to keep Attempt to keep Allow water / development water out ‘Water water out, in full through property from flood hazard Exclusion or in part, to avoid risk of Strategy’ depending on structural structural damage. assessment. If Attempt to keep structural water out for low concerns exist depths of follow approach flooding ‘Water to the right*** Entry Strategy’***

Mitigation  Land raising,  Materials and  Materials with  Materials with measures landscaping, constructions low low raised with low permeability to permeability up thresholds permeability at least 0.3m to 0.3m  Flood resilient  Accept water materials and passage designs through  Access to all building at spaces to higher water permit drying depths Notes: and cleaning  Design to drain * Design water depth should be based on assessment of all flood types that can impact on the building water away ** Resistance/resilience measures can be used in conjunction after flooding with Avoidance measures to minimise overall flood risk  Access to all *** In all cases the „water exclusion strategy‟ can be followed spaces to for flood water depths up to 0.3m Source: PPS25 Practice Guide p118 permit drying and cleaning

There should be no interruption to flood flows or loss of flood storage as a result of any proposed development. Flood storage compensation may be appropriate for sites on the edge of the existing floodplain. Modification of ground levels/compensation works may re-configure the floodplain but should not be used to increase land available for development. Whilst flooding mitigation measures can be implemented in most sites, it is worth noting that in some instances the findings of individual FRAs may determine that the risk of flooding to a proposed development is too great and mitigation measures are not feasible. In these instances, the development is likely to be subject to an objection by the Environment Agency.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 128

12.4 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) are management practices which enable surface water to be drained in a way which mimics, as closely as possible, the run-off prior to site development. The choice of flow management facilities within a single site is heavily influenced by constraints including (but not limited to):  Topography  Geology (soil permeability)  Available area  Former site use  Proposed site use  Groundwater conditions  Future adoption and maintenance possibilities

The design, construction and ongoing maintenance regime of such a scheme must be carefully defined, and a clear and comprehensive understanding of the existing catchment hydrological processes and existing drainage arrangements is essential. For infiltration SuDS techniques it is imperative that the water table is low enough and a site- specific infiltration test is undertaken. Where sites lie within or close to groundwater protection zones or aquifers further restrictions may be applicable, and guidance should be sought from the Environment Agency. There are many different SuDS techniques which can be implemented. The suitability of the techniques will be dictated in part by the development proposal and site conditions. Advice on best practice is available from the Environment Agency and the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). The inclusion of SuDS within developments should be seen as an opportunity to enhance ecological and amenity value, and promote Green Infrastructure, incorporating above ground facilities into the development landscape strategy. SuDS must be considered at the outset, during preparation of the initial site conceptual layout to ensure that enough land is given to design spaces that will be an asset to the development rather than an after-thought. Under the Flood and Water Management Act, the SuDS Approval Body will be responsible for approving, adopting and maintaining drainage plans and SuDS schemes that meet the National Standards for sustainable drainage. All new developments will require planning approval from both the SAB and the local planning authority. The Environment Agency will be a statutory consultee when delivering SuDS for any proposed discharge of surface water into a watercourse. Leicestershire County Council is expected to become the SuDS Approval Body (SAB) when Schedule 3 of the FWMA 2010 is implemented. Local planning bodies should:  Promote the use of SuDS for the management of run off  Ensure their policies and decisions on applications support and compliment the building regulations on sustainable rainwater drainage, giving priority to infiltration over first watercourses, then sewers  Incorporate favourable policies within development plans  Adopt policies for incorporating SuDS requirements into Local Development Documents  Encourage developers to utilise SuDS wherever practicable, if necessary, through the use of appropriate planning conditions  Develop joint strategies with sewerage undertakers and the Environment Agency to further encourage the use of SuDS

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 129

Table 12-1: Example of SuDS Techniques

SuDS Technique Flood Water Quality Landscape Reduction Treatment & and Wildlife Enhancement Benefit Living roofs    Basins and ponds    Constructed wetlands    Balancing ponds    Detention basins    Retention ponds    Filter strips and swales    Infiltration devices    Soakaways    Infiltration trenches and basins    Permeable surfaces and filter   drains   Gravelled areas   Solid paving blocks   Porous pavements   Tanked systems  Over-sized pipes/tanks  Storm cells 

12.5 Reducing flood risk The minimum acceptable standard of protection against flooding for new property within flood risk areas is 1% annual probability for fluvial flooding and a breach during a 0.5% annual probability tidal event, with allowance for climate change over the lifetime of the development. The measures chosen will depend on the nature of the flood risk. Some of the more common measures include those outlined in sections 12.5.1 to 12.5.6 below.

12.5.1 Reducing flood risk through site layout and design Flood risk should be considered at an early stage in deciding the layout and design of a site to provide an opportunity to reduce flood risk within the development. A number of the Charnwood Borough allocations cover all three Flood Zones. The NPPF states that a sequential, risk-based approach should be applied to try to locate more vulnerable land use to higher ground, while more flood-compatible development (e.g. vehicular parking, recreational space) can be located in higher risk areas. However vehicular parking in floodplains should be based on nature of parking, flood depths and hazard including evacuation procedures and flood warning. Waterside areas, or areas along known flow routes, can act as Green Infrastructure, being used for recreation, amenity and environmental purposes, allowing the preservation of flow routes and flood storage, and at the same time providing valuable social and environmental benefits contributing to other sustainability objectives. Landscaping should ensure safe access to higher ground from these areas, and avoid the creation of isolated islands as water levels rise.

12.5.2 Modification of ground levels Modifying ground levels to raise the land above the required flood level is a very effective way of reducing flood risk to the site in question, particularly where the risk is entirely from tidal flooding and the land does not act as conveyance for flood waters. However, in most areas of fluvial flood risk, conveyance or flood storage would be reduced by raising land above the floodplain, adversely impacting on flood risk downstream. Compensatory flood storage must be provided, and should be on a level for level, volume for volume basis on land that does not currently flood but is adjacent to the floodplain (in order for it to fill and drain). 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 130

It should be in the vicinity of the site and within the red line of the planning application boundary (unless the site is strategically allocated). Ground raising in the floodplain should not be undertaken to increase the developable land on a site but merely to configure it for a more convenient use. Raising ground levels can also deflect flood flows, so analyses should be performed to demonstrate that there are no adverse effects on third party land. Where the site is entirely within the floodplain it is not possible to provide compensatory storage at the maximum flood level and this will not be a viable mitigation option. Compensation schemes must be environmentally sound. Raising levels can also create areas where surface water might pond during significant rainfall events. Any proposals to raise ground levels should be tested to ensure that it would not cause increased ponding or build up of surface runoff on third party land.

12.5.3 Raised defences Construction of raised floodwalls or embankments to protect new development is not a preferred option, as a residual risk of flooding will remain. Compensatory storage must be provided where raised defences remove storage from the floodplain. Temporary or demountable defences are not acceptable forms of flood protection for a new development unless flood risk is residual only.

12.5.4 Developer contributions In some cases and following the application of the sequential test, it may be necessary for the developer to make a contribution to the improvement of flood defence provision that would benefit both the development in question and the local community. Developer contributions can also be made to maintenance and provision of flood risk management assets, flood warning and the reduction of surface water flooding (i.e. SuDS). Defra‟s Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA)18 goes to flood risk management authorities to pay for a range of activities including flood defence schemes that help reduce the risk of flooding and coastal erosion. Some schemes are only partly funded by FDGiA and therefore any shortfall in funds will need to be found from elsewhere using Partnership Funding, for example local levy funding, local businesses or other parties benefitting from the scheme. If a developer relies on a project to improve an existing defence, the developer will be expected to make a contribution which should be in proportion to the benefits received by the development. For new development in locations without existing defences, or where development is the only beneficiary, the full costs of appropriate risk management measures for the life of the assets proposed must be funded by the developer. However, just because the developer is willing to fund the cost of the necessary protection from flooding or coastal erosion, does not mean the development can be made appropriate; other policy aims also need to be met. Funding from developers should be explored prior to the granting of planning permission and in partnership with the local planning authority. The Environment Agency is committed to working in partnership with Developers to reduce flood risk. Where assets are in need of improvement or a scheme can be implemented to reduce flood risk, the EA request that Developers contact them to discuss potential solutions. The Partnerships and Strategic Overview Team who manage these partnerships can be contacted by calling 03708 506 506 (Mon-Fri, 9am - 5pm).

12.5.5 Building design Internal areas of new development should be designed to be dry during the 1 in 1,000-year flood event. The raising of floor levels within a development avoids damage occurring to the interior, furnishings and electrics in times of flood. If it has been agreed with the Environment Agency that, in a particular instance, the raising of floor levels is acceptable, they should be raised to 600mm above the maximum water level caused by a 1 in 100-year (1% AEP) event plus climate change. This additional height that the floor level is raised to is referred to as the “freeboard”.

18 Principles for implementing flood and coastal resilience funding partnerships (Environment Agency, 2012) 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 131

Allocating the ground floor of a building for less vulnerable use is an effective way of raising living space above flood levels. Putting a building on stilts is not considered an acceptable means of flood mitigation for new development. However it may be allowed in special circumstances if it replaces an existing solid building, as it can improve flood flow routes. In these cases attention should always be paid to safe access and egress and a legal agreement should be entered into to ensure the ground floor use is not changed.

12.5.6 Resistance and resilience There may be instances where flood risk remains to a development. For example, where the use is water compatible, where an existing building is being changed, where residual risk remains behind defences, or where floor levels have been raised but there is still a risk at the 0.1% annual probability. In these cases (and for existing development in the floodplain), additional measures can be put in place to reduce damage in a flood and increase the speed of recovery. These measures should not be relied on as the only mitigation method. Temporary barriers Temporary barriers consist of moveable flood defences which can be fitted into doorways and/or windows. The permanent fixings required to install these temporary defences should be discrete and keep architectural impact to a minimum. On a smaller scale temporary snap on covers for airbricks and air vents can also be fitted to prevent the entrance of flood water. Permanent barriers Permanent barriers can include built up doorsteps, rendered brick walls and toughened glass barriers. Wet-proofing Interior design to reduce damage caused by flooding, for example:  Electrical circuitry installed at a higher level with power cables being carried down from the ceiling rather than up from the floor level.  Water-resistant materials for floors, walls and fixtures.  Non-return valves to prevent waste water from being forced up bathrooms, kitchens or lavatories. If redeveloping existing basements, new electrical circuitry installed at a higher level with power cables being carried down from the ceiling rather than up from the floor level to minimise damage if the development floods. Resilience measures will be specific to the nature of flood risk, and as such will be informed and determined by the FRA.

12.6 Reducing flood risk from other sources

12.6.1 Surface water and sewer flooding Where new development is in an area where the public sewerage network does not currently have sufficient spare capacity to accept additional development flows it is recommended that the developer discusses such issues with Severn Trent Water at the earliest possible stage. The development should improve the drainage infrastructure to reduce flood risk on site. It is important however that a drainage impact assessment shows that this will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and the drainage requirements regarding runoff rates and SuDS for new development are met. If residual surface water flood risk remains, the likely flow routes and depths across the site should be modelled. The site should be designed so that these flow routes are preserved and building design should provide resilience against this residual risk. When redeveloping existing buildings, the installation of some permanent or temporary flood- proofing and resilience measures could prevent against both surface water and sewer flooding. Non-return valves prevent water entering the property from drains and sewers. Non-return valves can be installed within gravity sewers or drains, within the property‟s private sewer

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 132

upstream of the public sewerage system. These need to be carefully installed and must be regularly maintained. Additionally, manhole covers within the property‟s grounds could be sealed to prevent surcharging.

12.6.2 Groundwater Groundwater flooding has a very different flood mechanism to any other and for this reason many conventional flood defence and mitigation methods are not suitable. The only way to fully reduce flood risk would be through building design, ensuring floor levels are raised above the water levels caused by a 1% annual probability fluvial / 0.5% annual probability tidal plus climate change event. Site design would also need to preserve any flow routes followed by the groundwater overland to ensure flood risk is not increased downstream. When redeveloping existing buildings it may be acceptable to install pumps in basements as a resilience measure. However for new development this is unlikely to be considered an acceptable solution.

12.7 Making development sites safe

12.7.1 Safe access and egress The developer must ensure that safe access and egress is provided to an appropriate level for the type of development. This may involve raising access routes to a suitable level. More vulnerable development such as residential development should have safe access and egress with routes remaining „operational‟ during flooding. As part of the FRA, the developer should review the acceptability of the proposed access in consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency.

12.7.2 Flood warning and evacuation Emergency/evacuation and rescue plans should be in place for all highly vulnerable and major development within the 1 in 1,000 year floodplain. Those developments which house vulnerable people (i.e. care homes and schools) will require more detailed plans. Other major development may also consider this as it is beneficial from a public safety perspective as well as a socio- economic point of view. The responsibility for approving these plans lies with the emergency planners and emergency services. Advice should be sought from Charnwood‟s Emergency Planning team when producing an emergency/evacuation plan for developments as part of an FRA. Detailed emergency/evacuation plans for developments should undertake consultation not only with Charnwood‟s emergency planning team but also the emergency services so they know what is expected of them in the event of an emergency. Areas where no flood warning exists may find it difficult to demonstrate that their development is safe i.e. a car park in Flood Zone 3. Flood warnings supplied by the Environment Agency‟s Floodline Warnings Direct service can be provided to homes and businesses within Flood Zones 2 and 3, although the service is not available everywhere. Developers should encourage those owning or occupying developments, where flood warnings can be provided, to sign up to receive them. This applies even if the development is defended to a high standard.

12.8 Making space for water The NPPF sets out a clear policy aim in Flood Zone 3 to create space for flooding by restoring functional floodplain. All new development close to rivers should consider the opportunity presented to improve and enhance the river environment. Developments should look at opportunities for river restoration and enhancement as part of the development. Options include backwater creation, de-silting, in- channel habitat enhancement and removal of structures. When designed properly, such measures can have benefits such as reducing the costs of maintaining hard engineering structures, reducing flood risk, improving water quality and increasing biodiversity. Social benefits are also gained by increasing green space and access to the river.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 133

12.8.1 Buffer strips As a minimum, developers should set back development eight metres from the landward toe of fluvial defences or top of bank where defences do not exist. This provides a buffer strip to „make space for water‟, allow additional capacity to accommodate climate change and ensure access to defences is maintained for maintenance purposes. For watercourses classed as „Main River‟ a minimum eight metre easement from the top of bank is recommended for maintenance purposes to avoid disturbing riverbanks, benefiting ecology and having to construct engineered riverbank protection. Building adjacent to riverbanks can also cause problems to the structural integrity of the riverbanks and the building, making future maintenance of the river much more difficult.

12.8.2 Drainage capacity The capacity of internal drainage infrastructure is often limited and is at or near capacity under existing conditions. Development that leads to increased peak runoff within the drainage catchments may lead to infrastructure capacity being exceeded, with the potential for increased flood risk. Development locations should be assessed to ensure capacity exists within both the on and off site network.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 134

13 Summary and recommendations

13.1 Summary  The Charnwood SFRA update has considered all sources of flooding, including fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, canal, reservoir and sewer flooding, within the Charnwood Borough.  An assessment of the flood defences in the Borough has been undertaken, including defence condition and standard and the residual risk.  Flood risk has been assessed for all development options which have been considered for inclusion in the draft Core Strategy.  Flood risk has been assessed in detail for the development options being taken forward in the Core Strategy. Guidance for the requirements for a site specific Flood Risk Assessment for these sites is provided (section 7.2), as well as general guidance on flood risk assessment for any development proposals within the Charnwood Borough.  The updated Flood Map for Surface Water is provided, indicating the likelihood of surface water flooding in the Charnwood Borough.  Surface water flooding is a risk in many of the areas. Advice has been provided regarding suitable SuDS options.  A broad scale assessment of Critical Drainage Areas has been undertaken.  Green Infrastructure within the Borough has been assessed and the WFD status of the Borough‟s watercourses assessed.

13.2 Recommendations

13.2.1 Key recommendations  It is recommended that the mapping produced for this SFRA update is used in preference to the previous SFRA published in 2008.  It is recommended that developers refer to the FRA recommendations provided in the proposed development site summary tables in Section 7.2 as well as the general guidance on flood risk assessment in Section 12.  The key requirements for future development are summarised below: o All sites within Zones 2 and 3, and all sites over 1ha in flood zone 1, will require a detailed Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with NPPF, making reference to Sections 7.2 and 12, and associated maps of this report. Consultation with Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Environment Agency is strongly recommended at an early stage in the FRA process. o The layout of buildings and access routes should adopt a sequential approach, steering buildings (and hence people) towards areas of lowest risk within the boundaries of the site. This will also ensure that the risk of flooding is not worsened by, for example, blocked flood flow routes. o The FRA requirements defined in Section 12 of this Level 2 SFRA must be considered for all future development brought forward.  Any development adjacent to the canals should take account of residual risk from breach or failure and it is recommended the development incorporates a buffer zone next to the canal to allow access for maintenance and repair, should it be required.

13.2.2 Development and Flood Risk All development should adhere to the advice in the Charnwood Borough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Update and the guidance provided on Flood Risk Assessment requirements in order to:  protect floodplains from inappropriate development;  ensure no increase in flood risk;  where possible provide flood risk betterment; and 2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 135

 ensure development is safe.

13.2.3 Protection and Enhancement of Watercourses Planning permission for development should only be granted where:  the natural watercourse system which provides drainage of land is not adversely affected;  a minimum 8m width access strip is provided adjacent to the top of both banks of any watercourses for maintenance purposes and is appropriately landscaped for open space and Biodiversity benefits, this width may be reduced in particular circumstances with agreement from the Environment Agency and LPA;  it would not result in the loss of open water features through draining, culverting or enclosure by other means and culverts are opened up where ever possible;  surface water drainage is delivered by sustainable drainage systems (SuDS); and  betterment in the surface water runoff regime is ensured; with any residual risk of flooding, from drainage features either on or off site not placing people and property at unacceptable risk.

13.3 Use of SFRA data It is important to recognise that the SFRA has been developed using the best available information at the time of writing. This relates both to the current risk of flooding from rivers, and the potential impacts of future climate change. The Environment Agency regularly reviews their flood risk mapping, and it is important that they are approached to determine whether updated (more accurate) information is available prior to commencing a detailed Flood Risk Assessment. The SFRA update is a living document and should be periodically updated when new information on flood risk, flood warning or new planning guidance or legislation becomes available. New information on flood risk may be provided by the Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council (in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority), the Highways Authority, Severn Trent Water and the Environment Agency.

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 136

Appendices

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 I

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 II

A Flood Zone mapping

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 III

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 IV

B Climate change mapping

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 V

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 VI

C Depth mapping

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 VII

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 VIII

D Velocity mapping

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 IX

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 X

E Hazard mapping

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XI

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XII

F Surface water mapping

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XIII

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XIV

G Groundwater mapping

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XV

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XVI

H Flood warning coverage

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XVII

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XVIII

I Summary of flood defences in Charnwood Borough

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XIX

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XX

J Watercourses in the Charnwood Borough

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XXI

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XXII

K Note on sources of flood risk information

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XXIII

This page is intentionally left blank

2013s7588 Charnwood BC SFRA Update Final Draft v1.0 XXIV

Offices at

Coleshill Doncaster Edinburgh Haywards Heath Limerick Newcastle upon Tyne Newport Saltaire Skipton Tadcaster Thirsk Wallingford Warrington

Registered Office South Barn Broughton Hall SKIPTON North Yorkshire BD23 3AE

t:+44(0)1756 799919 e:[email protected]

Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd Registered in England 3246693

Visit our website www.jbaconsulting.com