DOCSLIB.ORG

Nottinghamshire County Council Environment and Resources Department

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nottinghamshire County Council Environment and Resources Department Nottinghamshire County Council Environment and Resources Department Proposed Multi-user Route Bilsthorpe to Sherwood Pines Nottinghamshire Report Reference: P.H.IL.30000.52 Flood Risk Assessment Report Tim Gregory Corporate Director Environment and Resources Trent Bridge House West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 6BJ September 2012 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Brief 2. EXISTING SITE 2.1 Location 2.2 Current Land Use 2.3 Flood Risk to the Existing Site 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Development Description 3.2 Development Drainage 4. FLOOD RISK TO THE DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Flood Zone Identification 4.2 Development Vulnerability 4.3 Mitigation 4.4 Flooding Mechanisms 4.5 Climate Change Impact on Sea and Tidal estuary levels 5. CONCLUSIONS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.2 Brief This Flood Risk Assessment is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25, ‘Development and Flood Risk’ published by the Department of Communities and Local Government. PPS 25 which sets out the framework for planning decisions made by local, regional and national government and the Environment Agency (EA). In order that planning authorities can make informed decisions on the development of sites in areas at risk of flood, PPS 25 requires the developer to carry out an assessment of flood risk. This report addresses the requirements given in Annex E of PPS 25 and other issues which are deemed relevant to flood risk. These requirements include the following: • Assess suitability of site and development through the use of the Sequential Test & Exception Test (if required). • Assessment of the magnitude and severity of flood risk to the site. • Assess impact of proposed development on flood risk to adjacent developments. • Determine ability of existing and proposed drainage to accommodate development flows with respect to flooding. • Demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures have been taken to prevent flooding. • Demonstrate that appropriate emergency situations have been considered e.g. overland flow paths, evacuation routes. 2. EXISTING SITE 2.1 Location The site comprises the disused mineral railway line from Eakring Road in Bilsthorpe (Easting 464812, Northing 361199) to Vicar Water Country Park (Easting 459404, Northing 362598) via Sherwood Pines in Nottinghamshire – shown in red on the plan below. 2.2 Current Land Use The closest water course to the disused railway line is Rainworth Water which is located to the west of Bilsthorpe. The railway line traverses Rainworth Water at NGR 464138,361166 in the form of a significant embankment and culvert feature. With the exception of the above small area to the west of Bilsthorpe the remainder of the multi user route way lies exclusively within the Flood Zone 1 area. 2.3 Flood Risk to the Existing Site 2.3.1 Flooding from the Existing Drainage Network The line of the former mineral track traverses the Rainworth Water floodplain west of Bilsthorpe on one occasion and only for approximately 10m. The Environment Agency (EA) has a requirement that no additional surface water run-off is generated from the proposed development and that the use of SUDS techniques should be considered. There are currently no known flooding issues related to the existing site drainage although there have been incidents of minor flooding on Eakering Road. Discussions with the Highways Department at Nottinghamshire County Council has indicated that these minor flooding incidents were related to extreme weather events and not related to the normal performance or capacity of the local drainage and public sewer network. 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Development Description The development proposal is for the construction of a multi user route and associated access to the former mineral railway line. 3.2 Development Drainage 3.2.1 Foul Water Drainage There is no foul water discharge 3.2.2 Storm Water Drainage The National Planning Policy Framework which replaced PPS 25 requires that the surface water drainage system for any development is designed such that the peak flow rates of surface water leaving a developed site are no greater that the rates prior to the proposed development. The multi user route will not change the infiltration potential of rainfall as ground cover will not alter to any significant degree, as the former mineral railway track bed will be used in the formation of a multi user route with permeable surface. The materials of construction being rolled ballast and a Red shale top dressing to provide a useable surface. 4.0 FLOOD RISK TO THE DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Flood Zone Identification The Sequential Test set out on NPPF/PPS 25 requires that different locations are considered for the site in order to best minimise flood risk. The proposed development can be considered as a redevelopment of an existing ‘brownfield’ site. It is therefore considered that this site is appropriate for the proposed development. PPS 25 also outlines a sequential approach to Flood Risk Assessments for any development, the starting point for which is the identification of the appropriate Flood Zones Interpretation of the extract from the Environment Agency Flood Mapping, shown below indicates that the proposed development site with the small exception of the embankment crossing Rainworth Water, shown outlined red, lies within Flood Zone 1(little or no risk of flooding), with Flood Zone 2(Medium Probability) and 3 (High probability) only occurring at the crossing of the Rainworth Water. Flood Zone 3 comprises land assessed as “having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (>1%) or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year .” N 4.2 Development Vulnerability NPPF/PPS25 requires the Planning Authority to consider if a development is appropriate on the basis of both the identified Flood Zone, and the level of vulnerability of the proposed development. Table 4.1 below summarises the general approach, and is a reproduction of Table D.3 from PPS 25. Table 4.1: Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone Compatibility Flood Risk Essential Water Highly More Less Vulnerability Infrastructure Compatible Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable Classification Zone 1: Low Probability Zone 2: Exception Medium test required Probability Zone 3a: High Exception test x Exception Probability required test required Zone 3b: The Exception test x x x Functional required Flood Plain ( = permitted, x = not permitted) The Sequential Test also requires that the suitability of the site for the prescribed use of the proposed development is addressed through the use of Tables D1-D3 in Annex D of PPS 25. The probability of flooding is considered in Table D1 which suggests that the area of the site (in this case the northern access ramp) to be developed lies within Flood Zone 3a. The proposed development falls into the category of ‘Water-compatible Development’ in Table D2. As Table 4.1 above suggests that this type of development in a Flood Zone 3a is permitted. The requirement for an Exception test is negated 4.3 Mitigation Issues related to safe access and egress can be addressed through the design of the scheme to ensure that appropriate design measures are incorporated to address issues of flood risk. Indeed the embankment will offer a degree of refuge as the elevation of the embankment which crosses Rainworth Water is at a significantly higher elevation than the surrounding ground. The site is predominantly located within an area which is not subject to flood risk and as such it is not considered that the development will increase flood risk elsewhere. 4.4 Flooding Mechanisms From the Newark and Sherwood District Council Strategic Flood Risk assessment report “The flood plain of Rainworth Water is located to the west of the village (Bilsthorpe). The vast majority of the village of Bilsthorpe is situated in Flood Zone 1; the risks posed by fluvial flooding are considered to be minimal”. 4.4.2 Flooding from Land Flooding from overland flow caused by inadequate drainage in the built-up area is not considered to be a risk in this area. Furthermore the majority of the route is in a rural environment. 4.4.3 Flooding from Groundwater There is no history of groundwater flooding at this location 4.4.4 Flooding from Sewers Need to speak with Flood management 4.5 Climate Change Impact For individual developments, an appropriate allowance should be included over the lifetime of each development in question. Developers are advised to therefore carefully consider, and advise those undertaking flood risk assessments what the design life is; the implications of climate change can then be carefully considered using the precautionary allowances and indicative sensitivity ranges in tables 2.1 and 2.2, of PPS25. 5. CONCLUSIONS It is considered that this appraisal represents a comprehensive analysis of the potential flood impact of the development upon other adjacent properties and of existing flood mechanisms on the development itself. It demonstrates that the proposed development is sustainable in terms of flood risk, and can be summarised as follows: • Interpretation of the Environment Agency Flood Zone Map indicates that with the small exception of the Rainworth Water crossing (Flood Zone 2/3) the alignment of the Multi User Route is wholly within a Flood Zone 1. • The proposed development is considered as “Water–compatible development” in NPPF/PPS 25 tables D1-2. Furthermore table D3 in PPS 25 suggests that this type of development is appropriate in Flood Zone 3a. • The primary risk to flooding of the site is from fluvial flooding. There have been no significant incidents of flooding on the site in recent years. • It is expected that the surface water discharges from the development will not be greater than the existing flows. • The detailed design of the surface water flow management drainage network will seek to adopt SUDS techniques where appropriate, possible solutions could include filter drains, and permeable pavement in pavement areas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advisory Visit Rivers Meden and Maun, Thoresby Estate
    Advisory Visit Rivers Meden and Maun, Thoresby Estate, Nottinghamshire January 2018 1.0 Introduction This report is the output of a site visit undertaken by Tim Jacklin of the Wild Trout Trust to the Rivers Meden and Maun on the Thoresby Estate, Nottinghamshire on 4th January, 2018. Comments in this report are based on observations on the day of the site visit and discussions with Andrew Dobson (River Warden, Thoresby Estate) and Ryan Taylor (Environment Agency). Normal convention is applied throughout the report with respect to bank identification, i.e. the banks are designated left hand bank (LHB) or right hand bank (RHB) whilst looking downstream. 2.0 Catchment / Fishery Overview The River Meden rises to the north of Mansfield and flows east-north- eastwards through a largely rural catchment. The River Maun rises in the conurbation of Mansfield and flows north-eastwards past Ollerton to join the River Meden at Conjure Alders (SK6589872033). The rivers then separate again and re-join approximately 6km downstream near West Drayton (SK7027875118) to form the River Idle (a Trent tributary with its confluence at West Stockwith SK7896894718). Both rivers flow over a geology comprising sandstone with underlying coal measures and there is a history of extensive deep coal mining in the area. Table 1 gives a summary of data collected by the Environment Agency to assess the quality of the rivers for the Water Framework Directive. Both rivers appear to have a similar ecological quality and closer inspection of the categories which make up this assessment reveal that fish and invertebrates were both ‘high’ and ‘good’ for the Meden and Maun respectively in 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 - 2021
    Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 - 2021 Final June 2016 Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Review Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Rev Date Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by 1 August 2013 Outline Local Flood Risk Hannah Andy Wallace, Gary Wood, Group Management Strategy for O’Callaghan, Flood Risk Manager Highways Consultation Flood Risk Manager Planning, Access Management and Officer (Project Commissioning Manager) (Project Executive) 2 December Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling 2014 Strategy – Draft for Client Water and Principal Associate Comment Flood Risk Consultant Consultant (URS) (URS) (URS) 3 June 2015 Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling Strategy – Second Draft for Water and Principal Associate Client Comment Flood Risk Consultant Consultant AECOM AECOM AECOM (formerly URS) (Formerly URS) (Formerly URS) 4 July 2015 Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling Strategy – Final Draft for Water and Principal Associate Consultation Flood Risk Consultant Consultant AECOM AECOM AECOM 5 October Local Flood Risk Management Derek Hair Andy Wallace Transport and 2015 Strategy – Final Draft for Highways Principal Project Flood Risk Consultation Committee Engineer Manager AECOM 6 December Local Flood Risk Management Derek Hair Clive Wood Transport and 2015 Strategy – Final Draft for Highways Principal Project Flood Risk Consultation Committee Engineer Manager 7 June 2016 Local Flood Risk Management Derek
    [Show full text]
  • Nottinghamshire County Council Sherwood Living Legend Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report
    Nottinghamshire County Council Sherwood Living Legend Geo-environmental Desk Study Report This report is prepared by Atkins Limited for the sole and exclusive use of Nottinghamshire County Council in response to their particular instructions. No liability is accepted for any costs claims or losses arising from the use of this report or any part thereof for any purpose other than that for which it was specifically prepared or by any party other than Nottingham County Council. Nottinghamshire County Council Sherwood Forest Living Legend Geo-environmental Desk Study Report Nottinghamshire County Council Sherwood Living Legend Desk Study Report JOB NUMBER: 5048377 DOCUMENT REF: Sherwood Living Legend Desk Study v2.doc - Draft for Client approval TJC JPB MP NAW Dec-06 1 Final TJC JPB MP NAW Jan-06 Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Revision Purpose Description Nottinghamshire County Council Sherwood Living Legend Geo-environmental Desk Study Report CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 General 1-1 1.2 Information Reviewed 1-1 1.3 Scope of Works 1-2 2. SITE AREA 2-1 2.1 Site Location 2-1 2.2 Site Description 2-1 2.3 Adjacent Areas 2-1 2.4 Historical Development 2-2 2.5 Archaeology 2-4 2.6 National Monument Records 2-4 3. PUBLISHED GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION 3-1 3.1 Solid and Drift Geology 3-1 3.2 BGS Borehole Logs 3-2 3.3 Hydrology 3-2 3.4 Hydrogeology 3-2 3.5 Mining 3-3 3.6 Radon 3-4 3.7 Additional Geo-environmental Information. 3-4 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Nottingham City Council
    Greater Nottingham and Ashfield Outline Water Cycle Study Final Report February 2010 Creating the environment for business Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Entec (© Entec UK Limited 2010) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Entec under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Entec. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third-Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third-party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Entec at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third-party who is able to access it by any means. Entec excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Shale Gas in the UK
    Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Shale Gas in the UK A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and Engineering 2017 Jasmin Cooper School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science Table of Contents List of Tables 7 List of Figures 9 Abbreviations 10 Abstract 12 Declaration 13 Copyright Statement 13 Acknowledgements 14 Chapter 1: Introduction 15 1. Background 15 1.1. Shale gas and how it is extracted 15 1.2. Conventional gas and shale gas 19 1.3. Energy mix in the UK 22 1.4. UK shale gas 24 2. Aims and objectives 25 3. Thesis structure 26 4. Methodology 27 4.1. Goal and scope definition 27 4.2. Identification of sustainability issues and definition of indicators 29 4.3. Identification of electricity generation options 30 4.4. Definition of scenarios 31 4.5. Life cycle sustainability assessment 31 4.5.1. Environmental sustainability assessment 31 4.5.2. Economic sustainability assessment 33 4.5.3. Social sustainability assessment 34 4.5.4. Multi-criteria decision analysis 36 4.5.5. Data quality assessment 36 4.6. Conclusions and recommendations 37 References 39 Chapter 2: Shale gas: A review of the economic, environmental and social 48 sustainability Abstract 49 1. Introduction 50 2. Economic aspects 54 2.1. The US experience 54 2.1.1. Direct impacts 54 2.1.2. Indirect impacts 57 2.2. Other regions 58 3. Environmental aspects 61 3.1. Air emissions and impacts 61 3.1.1. GHG and climate change 61 3.1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Rainworth Operation Sewage Works
    Fisher German LLP Severn Trent Water Limited Rainworth Operation Sewage Works Planning, Design & Access Statement on behalf of: Severn Trent Water Limited by: Alan Hardwick BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI 01530 567471 date: September 2013 revision: 001 Severn Trent Water Severn Trent Water Limited (STWL) is a regulated business with statutory responsibilities for the provision of water and sewerage services to over eight million people in an area of 21,000 square kilometres stretching from the Bristol Channel to the Humber, and from mid-Wales to the East Midlands. Severn Trent Water is currently implementing its Asset Management Plan for AMP5 (April 2010 to March 2015), which is the mechanism by which the regulator OFWAT defines in a five year capital expenditure programme for all water companies. Investment during the AMP5 period is in response to a number of key drivers. These drivers include providing a continuous supply of quality water, dealing effectively with waste water, and promoting an effective regulatory regime. Scope of Project / Background This planning statement has been prepared for STWL to support a planning application for the installation of five Kiosks to house a new motor control centre, electrical switch gear and distribution boards at Rainworth Sewage Treatment Works (STW). Rainworth STW serves a current Population Equivalent (PE) of 26,907 however Rainworth is identified within the Core Strategy Options Report as having the potential to accommodate between 500 - 950 new houses by 2026. The STW will have limited capacity to cope with this increased load unless elements of the works are updated. The proposal is to install five kiosks to house a new motor control centre, electrical switch gear and distribution boards within the existing operational site to facilitate this increased load and ensure the likely future increases in demand up to 2026 can be met.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Greater Nottingham Blue-Green Infrastructure Strategy
    DRAFT Greater Nottingham Blue-Green Infrastructure Strategy July 2021 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 8 3. Blue-Green Infrastructure Priorities and Principles 18 4. National and Local Planning Policies 23 5. Regional and Local Green Infrastructure Strategies 28 6. Existing Blue-Green Infrastructure Assets 38 7. Blue-Green Infrastructure Strategic Networks 62 8. Ecological Networks 71 9. Synergies between Ecological and the Blue-Green Infrastructure Network 89 Appendix A: BGI Corridor Summaries 92 Appendix B: Biodiversity Connectivity Maps 132 Appendix C: Biodiversity Opportunity Areas 136 Appendix D: Natural Environment Assets 140 Appendix D1: Sites of Special Scientific Interest 141 Appendix D2: Local Nature Reserves 142 Appendix D3: Local Wildlife Sites 145 Appendix D4: Non-Designated 159 1 Appendix E: Recreational Assets 169 Appendix E1: Children’s and Young People’s Play Space 170 Appendix E2: Outdoor Sports Pitches 178 Appendix E3: Parks and Gardens 192 Appendix E4: Allotments 199 Appendix F: Blue Infrastructure 203 Appendix F1: Watercourses 204 2 1. Introduction Objectives of the Strategy 1.1 The Greater Nottingham authorities have determined that a Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) Strategy is required to inform both the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan (Local Plan Part 1) and the development of policies and allocations within it. This strategic plan is being prepared by Broxtowe Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council, Nottingham City Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council. It will also inform the Erewash Local Plan which is being progressed separately. For the purposes of this BGI Strategy the area comprises the administrative areas of: Broxtowe Borough Council; Erewash Borough Council; Gedling Borough Council; Nottingham City Council; and Rushcliffe Borough Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Catchment Management Plan the Environment Agency's Vision for the Rivers Idle and Torne Catchment Management Plan
    catchment management plan The Environment Agency's Vision for the Rivers Idle and Torne Catchment Management Plan he catchment of the Rivers Idle and Torne The key objectives of the plan are therefore to: T covers an area of 1 307 km2 within north Nottinghamshire and south Humberside and has • Establish a balance between the demands of a resident population of about 625,000 people. irrigation and abstraction and the needs of the environment. Man has impacted on the catchment since early times and the area has a rich industrial and • Ensure that the quality of minewater archaeological heritage. The heavily urbanised discharged to the rivers is of a and industrial headwaters contrast sharply with standard appropriate to the needs of the very flat, open and rural lower reaches nearer downstream users. to the confluences with the River Trent. Man's influence is also apparent here though where • Initiate and promote proposals for the drains have been cut and rivers re-routed and improvement of habitats for fisheries straightened to produce highly productive and conservation. agricultural areas. • Ensure that the standard of flood protection The catchment is predominantly rural with the is appropriate to the needs of the adjacent exception of the headwaters, as described above. land use, consistent with the vision. The River Idle and its tributaries flow through the heavily industrialised towns of Mansfield and The achievement of this vision is dependant on Worksop, then through the rolling forested areas the committed and enthusiastic cooperation of of Sherwood Forest and the Dukeries. The River others. Some objectives are common goals, while Torne rises on the edge of Doncaster and others may require a degree of compromise flows through the flat areas of low land, between differing demands on the resources of characterised by the Isle of Axholme, Thorne the catchment.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture Committee Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 14:00 County Hall, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7QP
    Culture Committee Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 14:00 County Hall, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7QP AGENDA 1 To note the appointment by the County Council on 12 May 2016 of Chairman and Vice Chairman 2 Minutes of the last meeting on 19 April 3 - 6 3 Apologies for Absence 4 Declarations of Interests by Members and Officers:- (see note below) (a) Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (b) Private Interests (pecuniary and non-pecuniary) 5 Service Update for the Period 29 March to 19 June 2016 7 - 10 6 Performance Reporting 1 April - 31 March 2016 11 - 14 7 Nottinghamshire Green Estate Development Strategy and Plan 15 - 20 2013-2023 8 Sherwood Forest Visitor Centre and Country Park - Progress Update 21 - 24 9 National Watersports Centre Progress Report - Third Year Contract 25 - 28 Review 10 Nottinghamshire Community Learning and Skills Service - Utilisation 29 - 36 of Grant Reserves for 2016-17 11 Work Programme 37 - 40 Page 1 of 40 Notes (1) Councillors are advised to contact their Research Officer for details of any Group Meetings which are planned for this meeting. (2) Members of the public wishing to inspect "Background Papers" referred to in the reports on the agenda or Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act should contact:- Customer Services Centre 0300 500 80 80 (3) Persons making a declaration of interest should have regard to the Code of Conduct and the Council’s Procedure Rules. Those declaring must indicate the nature of their interest and the reasons for the declaration. Councillors or Officers requiring clarification on whether to make a declaration of interest are invited to contact Peter Barker (Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • NCC14 9-9-09 Original Committee Report Land at Former Rufford
    report Nottinghamshire County Council meeting PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE th date 9 JANUARY 2009 agenda item number 4 Corporate Director (Communities) NEWARK AND SHERWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL REF.NO. 3/07/01793/CMW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY THROUGH THE INCINERATION OF WASTE TOGETHER WITH ANCILARY INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING A WASTE BULKING/TRANSFER STATION, ADMINISTRATION/VISITOR CENTRE, LANDSCAPING AND CREATION OF NEW INTERNAL HAUL ROAD. LAND AT FORMER RUFFORD COLLIERY, RUFFORD. APPLICANT: VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LIMITED. Purpose of Report To consider a planning application for the construction and operation of an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) with ancillary infrastructure including a waste bulking/transfer station, administration/visitor centre, landscaping and creation of a new internal haul road on land at the former Rufford Colliery, Rufford. The key issues relate to compliance with waste management policy, in particular Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning and Sustainable Waste Management, the selection of the former Rufford Colliery site for the development and how it satisfies local planning policies, and an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the development, with particular reference to climate change, landscape, and ecology. The site lies within an area designated as countryside. Accordingly the application has been treated as a ‘departure’ from the Development Plan. The recommendation is to grant conditional planning permission subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 legal agreement and referral to the Government Office for the East Midlands. 1 1. Executive Summary 1.1 This planning application raises a number of complex policy, technical and environmental considerations, and in order to assist Members’ understanding of all the issues, the report has been broken down into a number of discrete sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix Nottinghamshire Green Estate Development Strategy
    Appendix 1 Green Estate Sites (04/2014) Site Name Score Asset Area Public District Location Options (Hectares) Access KEY SITES Cotgrave Country Park 37 R 162.1 Part Rushcliffe Hollygate Lane, Cotgrave Daneshill Lakes 36 R 67.2 Yes Bassetlaw Daneshill Road, between Torworth & Lound Teversal & Silverhill Trails (8km w. Brierley Forest link) 33 R 11.4 Yes Ashfield Trail between county boundaries Pleasley and Woodend Moor Pond Wood 32 R 9.2 Yes Gedling Linby Ln, Papplewick (B6011) Southwell Trail (11.5 km incl Bilsthorpe arm) 31 R 27.6 Yes N&S Trail between Southwell & A614 & Bilsthorpe Cockglode and Rotary Woods LNR 29 R 14.9 Yes N&S Between Ollerton & Thoresby Colliery, Sherwood Heath Tippings Wood 29 R 51.2 Part N&S Warsop Lane, Blidworth/Rainworth (B6020) Great Northern Railway Path (1.7 km) 28 R 7.0 Yes Broxtowe Awsworth, Kimberley Ollerton Colliery (East) 28 R 58.2 Yes N&S Newark Rd, Ollerton Shirebrook Colliery North 28 R 79.1 Yes Mansfield Longster Lane, Sookholme (B6407) Shirebrook Colliery South 28 R 56.0 Yes Mansfield Wood Lane (off Bath Lane) Sookholme Rufford No. 1 (Rainworth Water) 26 R 60.5 No N&S Rufford Colliery Access Road, off Rainworth Bypass (A617) Dob Park 25 R 20.4 Yes Ashfield Washdyke Lane (west of Hucknall Bypass, A611) Harby-High Marnham SUSTRANS route (10km) 25 R 5.0 Yes N&S/Bassetlaw nr High Marnham power station to Lincs border Linby Trail (2km) 25 R 4.6 Yes Gedling Trail between Wighay Road, Linby to Newstead Shireoaks & Coachgap Green 25 R 29.6 Yes Bassetlaw Shireoaks Rd, Shireoaks Kimberley Green 24 R 7.2
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
    Noble House, Capital Drive, Linford Wood, Milton Keynes MK14 6QP T +44 (0)1908 669898 F +44 (0)1908 669899 E [email protected] W www.rpsgroup.com STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT JUNE 2008 PROJECT NO: JKK3639 RPS Planning and Development Ltd Registered in England No. 02947164 Centurion Court, 85 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4RY A member of the RPS Group plc Mansfield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment –Technical Report STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT For Mansfield District Revision Details Date D FINAL SUBMISSION 27/06/08 C FINAL SUBMISSION (for Comment) 18/04/08 B EA Comments and numbering 08/01/08 A FINAL DRAFT 07/12/07 - DRAFT COPY 10/09/07 For and on behalf of RPS Planning and Development Prepared by: J. Harris Principal Engineering Hydrologist Checked by: K. Limbrick Principal Hydrologist H. Phillips Associate Planner Approved by: K. McEvaddy Associate Date: 27 June 2008 This report has been produced by RPS within the terms of the contract with the Client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by the Client. We accept no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this report other than by the Client for the purposes which it was originally prepared. Mansfield District Council June 2008 Mansfield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment –Technical Report CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]