Humber River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 - 2021 PART B: Sub Areas in the Humber River Basin District

Home , Aylestone Meadows, Bempton, Burton Constable, Cock Beck, Fairham Brook, Gilberdyke

March 2016

Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon House, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: enquiries@environment- or our National Customer Contact Centre: agency.gov.uk T: 03708 506506 www.gov.uk/environment-agency Email: enquiries@environment-

Contents

Contents ...... iii Glossary and abbreviations ...... vi The layout of this document ...... ix 1. Sub Areas in the Humber River Basin District ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Management catchments ...... 1 Flood risk areas ...... 1 Strategic areas ...... 2 2. The Flood Risk Areas of the Humber River Basin District ...... 4 2.1. The Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area ...... 8 The Kingston upon Hull area: Summary of risk ...... 11 The Kingston upon Hull area: Objectives for managing risk ...... 18 The Kingston upon Hull area: Measures for managing risk ...... 19 2.2. The West Midlands Flood Risk Area ...... 21 The West Midlands Flood Risk Area: Summary of risk...... 24 The West Midlands Flood Risk Area: Objectives for managing risk ...... 31 The West Midlands Flood Risk Area: Measures for managing risk ...... 31 2.3. The Leicester Principal Urban Area Flood Risk Area ...... 33 The Leicester Principal Urban Area: Summary of risk ...... 35 The Leicester Principal Urban Area: Objectives for managing risk ...... 44 The Leicester Principal Urban Area: Measures for managing risk ...... 46 3. Conclusions, objectives and measures to manage flood risk in Humber River Basin District catchments ...... 47 3.1. The Aire and Calder management catchment ...... 50 Introduction to the catchment ...... 50 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 55 Conclusions and objectives for the Aire and Calder catchment ...... 64 Measures across the Aire and Calder catchment ...... 65 3.2. The Derwent Derbyshire management catchment ...... 68 Introduction to the catchment ...... 68 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 72 Conclusions and objectives for the Derwent Derbyshire catchment ...... 79 Measures across the Derwent Derbyshire catchment ...... 81 3.3. The Derwent Humber management catchment ...... 83 Introduction to the catchment ...... 83 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 87 Conclusions and objectives for the Derwent Humber catchment ...... 97

iii

Measures across the Derwent Humber catchment ...... 98 3.4. The Don and Rother management catchment ...... 101 Introduction to the catchment ...... 101 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 106 Conclusions and objectives for the Don and Rother catchment ...... 113 Measures across the Don and Rother catchment ...... 114 3.5. The Dove management catchment ...... 117 Introduction to the catchment ...... 117 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 121 Conclusions and objectives for the Dove catchment ...... 127 Measures across the Dove catchment ...... 128 3.6. The Esk and Coast management catchment ...... 130 Introduction to the catchment ...... 130 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 135 Conclusions and objectives for the Esk and Coast catchment ...... 142 Measures across the Esk and Coast catchment ...... 144 3.7. The Hull and East Riding management catchment ...... 146 Introduction to the catchment ...... 146 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 151 Conclusions and objectives for the Hull and East Riding catchment ...... 160 Measures across the Hull and East Riding catchment ...... 161 3.8. The Idle and Torne management catchment ...... 164 Introduction to the catchment ...... 164 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 169 Conclusions and objectives for the Idle and Torne catchment...... 175 Measures across the Idle and Torne catchment ...... 176 3.9. The Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment ...... 178 Introduction to the catchment ...... 178 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 184 Conclusions and objectives for the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment191 Measures across the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment ...... 192 3.10. The Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment ...... 194 Introduction to the catchment ...... 194 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 200 Conclusions and objectives for the Lower Trent and Erewash catchment ...... 206 Measures across the Lower Trent and Erewash catchment ...... 207 3.11. The Soar management catchment ...... 210 Introduction to the catchment ...... 210 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 214

Conclusions and objectives for the Soar catchment ...... 222 Measures across the Soar catchment ...... 224 3.12. The Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment ...... 226 Introduction to the catchment ...... 226 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 230 Conclusions and objectives for the Staffordshire Trent Valley catchment ...... 236 Measures across the Staffordshire Trent Valley catchment ...... 237 3.13. The Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse management catchment ...... 239 Introduction to the catchment ...... 239 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 245 Conclusions and objectives for the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse catchment.... 253 Measures across the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse catchment ...... 254 3.14. The Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment ...... 257 Introduction to the catchment ...... 257 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 263 Conclusions and objectives for the Tame, Anker and Mease catchment ...... 268 Measures across the Tame, Anker and Mease catchment ...... 269 3.15. The Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment ...... 271 Introduction to the catchment ...... 271 Flood risk maps and statistics ...... 276 Conclusions and objectives for the Wharfe and Lower Ouse catchment ...... 283 Measures across the Wharfe and Lower Ouse catchment ...... 284 4. The Humber Estuary Strategic Area ...... 286

Glossary and abbreviations

AEP Annual Exceedance Probability AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty BAP Biodiversity Action Plan Catchment The watershed of a surface water river system CaBA Catchment based approach: an approach to environmental planning that focuses on local engagement and partnerships CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan Coastal Groups Voluntary coastal defence groups made up of maritime district authorities and other bodies with coastal defence responsibilities Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EA Environment Agency EPR Environmental Protection Regulations EU European Union FCERM Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management FAS Flood Alleviation Scheme Floods Directive The European Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) on the assessment and management of flood risks FRA Flood Risk Area. Areas where the risk of flooding from local flood risks is significant as designated under the Flood Risk Regulations FRR The Flood Risk Regulations: The FRR came into force December 2009. They set out the requirement for flood risk management authorities to undertake preliminary flood risk assessments, identify flood risk areas and produce Flood Risk Management Plans. FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan – plan produced to deliver the requirements of the FRRs FWD Floodline Warnings Direct FWMA Flood and Water Management Act, 2010 FRMB Flood Risk Management Board Government The term government is used within this report to refer to Defra and Welsh Government Groundwater Occurs when water levels in the ground rise above the flooding natural surface. Low-lying areas underlain by permeable strata are particularly susceptible Ha Hectares HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment: An assessment undertaken in relation to a site designated under the Habitats

and Birds Directives IDB Internal Drainage Board Km Kilometres LEP Local Enterprise Partnership LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority LFRMS Local Flood Risk Management Strategy: These are produced by LLFAs under the FWMA 2010 LNR Local Nature Reserve LRF Local Resilience Forum Main river A watercourse shown as such on the main river map, and for which the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales has responsibilities and powers MTP Medium Term Plan: A list of capital projects to fund flood defence works over a 6 year period, drawn from a variety of sources. This is now known as the 6 year investment programme. mAOD A surveying term indicating the height in metres of a point above ordnance datum NaFRA National Flood Risk Assessment: an assessment of flood risk for England and Wales showing the chance of flooding from rivers and the sea (both along the open coast and tidal estuaries) National FCERM National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy strategy: these are strategies prepared under the FWMA, by the Environment Agency for England and by Welsh Government for Wales NNR National Nature Reserve NRW The Natural Resources Wales took over the functions of the Environment Agency in Wales on 1st April 2013 Ordinary watercourses All watercourses that are not designated Main River, and which are the responsibility of Local Authorities or, where they exist, IDBs PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment – these were required to be published by December 2011 and were the first stage in delivering the Regulations Ramsar Wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention Reservoir A natural or artificial lake where water is collected and stored until needed. Reservoirs can be used for irrigation, recreation, providing water supply for municipal needs, hydroelectric power or controlling water flow RMAs Risk Management Authorities. Organisations that have a key role in flood and coastal erosion risk management as defined by the Act. These are the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, lead local flood authorities, district councils where there is no unitary authority, internal drainage boards, water companies, and highways authorities

vii

RFCCs Regional Flood and Coastal Committees RBD River Basin District:- These are the reporting units to the European Commission for the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive RBMP River Basin Management Plan:– plan required by the European Water Framework Directive River flooding Occurs when water levels in a channel overwhelms the capacity of the channel SAC Special Area of Conservation SAMs Scheduled Monument SAMP System Asset Management Plan Sewer flooding Flooding due to failure or inadequate capacity of the man- made system which is designed to carry away flows of sewage and drainage water. SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SMP Shoreline Management Plan Soakaways Method of managing surface water drainage through infiltration. SPA Special Protection Area Spillway Structure for the discharge of excess water from a reservoir or channel. SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest Surface water flooding Flooding from rainwater (including snow and other precipitation) which has not entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer SWMP Surface Water Management Plan SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems SWaMp Surface Water Management Group uFMfSW Updated Flood Map for Surface Water:- National scale modelling of England and Wales enhanced with compatible locally produced mapping where available. Assessment of a range of flooding scenarios WAG Welsh Assembly Government Washlands Area of floodplain where water is stored in time of flood. Such an area may have its effectiveness enhanced by the provision of structures to control the amount of water stored and the timing of its release to alleviate peak flood flows in areas downstream. WFD Water Framework Directive

viii

The layout of this document

Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) have been divided into four sections to help readers identify and access information relevant to them. This is Part B and introduces each of the sub-areas in turn. This section outlines the catchments based on Water Framework Directive (WFD) management catchments, which make up the River Basin District (RBD), then the Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) (identified through the PFRA) and other strategic areas across the RBD. Section Name Audience 1 Summary Document For those who want a simple summary of everything, a high level overview of the plan 2 Part A: Background and river For those who need some basin district wide information legislative background and catchment wide, high level information 3 Part B: Catchment Summaries For those who want the detail of the sub-catchments and flooding statistics 4 Part C: Appendices For those who want to see the program of work, line by line the measures for implementation

The other parts of the flood risk management plan are located on gov.uk (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/humber-river-basin-district-flood-risk- management-plan )

During December 2015, Storms Desmond, Eva and Frank brought record breaking levels of rainfall and significant flooding to some parts of the country. On 5 and 6 December the highest ever river flows were registered in several large catchments including the Eden, Lune and Tyne. On 25 and 26 December further record river levels were registered for many large rivers draining the Pennines. The Met Office confirmed that December 2015 was the wettest on record in parts of the UK, including Cumbria which experienced more than two and a half times expected monthly rainfall. Across the country over 19,000 homes were flooded, with thousands more affected by loss of power supply and travel disruption. Existing flood defences played an essential part in protecting thousands of homes during December with 12,500 benefitting during Storm Desmond and 10,900 during Storm Eva. Support to affected communities, business and the agricultural sector is in place, along with a programme of inspections and repairs to damaged defences. It is essential to ensure that we have the very best possible plans in place for flood management across the whole country. Following the December 2015 floods, Defra announced a National Flood Resilience Review, to assess how the country can be better protected from future flooding and increasingly extreme weather events. The review is looking at climate modelling, infrastructure, resilience and future investment strategy. Government is also working to strengthen or establish partnerships in the areas most flood affected to encourage a more integrated approach to managing risk across the whole catchment. These Partnerships are considering improvements to flood defences, upstream options to help slow the flow and surface water runoff, and how planning and design of urban areas can help reduce flood risk. They are also aiming to build stronger links between local residents, community groups and flood management planning and decision making. The resulting actions from the Local Flood Partnerships in Cumbria and Yorkshire will complement the measures in the relevant FRMPs and the learning from this approach will be shared across the country. In England, the Government is investing £2.3bn on 1,500 flood defence schemes between 2015-2021. Investment in flood risk management infrastructure not only reduces the risks of flooding but also supports growth by helping to create new jobs, bringing confidence to areas previously affected by floods and creating and restoring habitats. The following flood risk areas and catchments were impacted by the December 2015 storms and experienced significant flooding to homes, businesses and infrastructure:

 Aire and Calder  Swale, Ure, Nidd and Upper Ouse  Wharfe and Lower Ouse  Derwent (Humber)

1. Sub Areas in the Humber River Basin District

Introduction There are a number of sub-areas within the Humber RBD, as shown in Figure 1 and outlined below. These sub-areas and issues in them are described in Catchment Summaries in Part B of the FRMP. These are:

 Catchments (which are set out according to WFD Management Catchments)  Flood Risk Areas (identified in the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA)): areas that require FRMPs for local sources of flooding  Strategic Areas (geographical area where it is important to consider flood risk management across more than one of the above) Management catchments These are areas, which are set out according to WFD Management Catchments, where the Environment Agency focuses engagement to enable a catchment-based approach to water management. There are 15 management catchments in the Humber RBD. These are:  Aire and Calder  Louth Grimsby and Ancholme  Derwent Derbyshire  Lower Trent and Erewash  Derwent Humber  Soar  Don and Rother  Swale, Ure, Nidd and Upper Ouse  Dove  Tame, Anker and Mease  Esk and Coast  Trent Valley Staffordshire  Hull and East Riding  Wharfe and Lower Ouse  Idle and Torne Flood risk areas These are areas identified through Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments as areas of potentially significant local flood risk (for instance surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses), for which FRMPs need to be prepared. The Flood Risk Areas in the Humber RBD are: Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area – This flood risk area falls within the Hull and East Riding catchment. It covers the majority Kingston upon Hull as well as Haltemprice villages to the west and north-east of the city. Hull City Council has contributed to this FRMP whilst East Riding Yorkshire Council has produced a separate FRMP for the Haltemprice villages.

The West Midlands Flood Risk Area - This covers parts of Birmingham, the Black Country, Solihull, Staffordshire and Worcestershire. It includes parts of the River Tame catchment. The flood risk area also crosses into the Severn River Basin District but it is being reported under the Humber RBD in which it predominately sits.

The Leicester Principle Urban Area FRA – This FRA includes the urban watercourses and the majority of their catchments that feed into the River Soar in Leicester. Leicester City Council (LLFA) lead on the FRMP for this Area, as they have the largest area contributing to the Urban Area, with Leicestershire County Council the other LLFA providing support. Both LLFAs have contributed to this FRMP. Strategic areas

These are areas where it is important to consider flood risk management across more than one sub-area, so that interested parties can work in a co-ordinated way to set out conclusions, objectives and measures to manage risk. The Humber Estuary has been identified as a strategic area because it covers the estuary frontage of 7 different management catchments as well as a significant portion of the Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area.

Figure 1: Sub areas in the Humber RBD

2. The Flood Risk Areas of the Humber River Basin District

The following section provides the conclusions of flood risk and the agreed objectives for managing these risks within the three Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) located within the Humber RBD. It provides a summary of the measures required to effectively manage these risks as agreed by the relevant LLFA. In England, FRAs have been defined using national criteria to identify where more than 30,000 people are at risk of surface water flooding. As well as this, the impact of flooding on critical infrastructure and non-residential properties was taken into account when defining FRAs. The identification of FRAs was done through the PFRA process which forms step one of the Flood Risk Regulations (2009) (FRR). Based on data analysed through the Humber FRMP process, surface water flood risk to people, non residential property and critical infrastructure is summarised in Table 1. For a more detailed assessment of risk, the relevant FRA sub section should be viewed as this information has been agreed by the relevant LLFA. For information relating to the Haltemprice villages of the Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice FRA please see the separate FRMP produced by East Riding of Yorkshire Council. Table 1: Assessment of flood risk to the FRAs within the Humber FRMP

Total in High risk Medium Low risk FRA risk Risk to people: Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice 336,600 2,550 7000 36,650 Leicester Principal Urban Area 413,350 5,200 9,700 42,350 West Midlands 2,200,350 11,300 37,200 167,700

Risk to non residential property: Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice 19,800 250 300 1,350 Leicester Principal Urban Area 23,400 500 700 3,150 West Midlands 115,700 1,050 2,600 12,250

Risk to critical infrastructure: road and rail (km) Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice 700 1 1 3 Leicester Principal Urban Area 890 10 15 25 West Midlands 5,750 60 90 190

Risk to critical infrastructure: service sites Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice 370 3 4 40 Leicester Principal Urban Area 450 20 8 50 West Midlands 2,090 20 50 220

The figures in the above table are preliminary figures using a high level national methodology for assessing properties that may be in areas at risk from surface water flooding. The methodology does not take into account all local conditions, local topography and below ground domestic lateral and highway drains. This information has not been validated or agreed by LLFA. A more detailed assessment of risk per FRA can be viewed, using the following link Humber RBD: surface water.

Figure 2: Surface water flood risk within the FRAs: risk to people

Figure 3: Surface water flood risk within the FRAs: risk to economic activity

Figure 4: Surface water flood risk within the FRAs: risk to the natural and historic environment

2.1. The Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area

Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice has been identified as a FRA through the PFRA process. This section discusses the FRA, identifies the objectives and measures being taken forward to managing the risk of flooding and provides links to other relevant documentation. Identification of the FRA

The PFRAs carried out by Hull City Council and Find out more: East Riding of Yorkshire Council identified the The PFRAs for the Kingston upon Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice area as a Hull and Haltemprice FRA can be FRA based on 19,557 properties being at risk of viewed using the following links: surface water flooding from a rainfall event of a 1 in 200 year magnitude. This FRA covers  Hull City Council PFRA almost the whole of Hull and the Haltemprice  East Riding of Yorkshire Council: villages of Cottingham, Willerby, Kirk Ella, PFRA Anlaby and Hessle to the West of the city and Bilton to the north east, see Figure 5. Following the identification of a FRA, the responsible LLFA is required to develop an FRMP which sets out the objectives and measures being taken forward to manage local sources of flooding. To meet this requirement Hull City Council has included their objectives and measures within this plan whilst East Riding of Yorkshire Council have developed a separate FRMP, as summarised in Table 2 below. Please note that the following section is based on the Kingston upon Hull area and has been taken from the draft LFRMS. All information regarding the Haltemprice villages can be viewed on East Riding of Yorkshire Councils website using the link provided in Table 2. Table 2: Inclusion of the FRA within the Humber FRMP

In the Link to further Humber information FRMP? The FRA covers almost all of the  The draft LFRMS can authority area. A Local Flood Risk be seen at:

Management Strategy (LFRMS) is Hull City Council currently under development. Its planning policy draft outputs have been included in the Humber FRMP to fulfil the requirements of the FRR. The FRA covers the Haltemprice  The FRMP covering villages of Cottingham, Willerby, this area can be seen Kirk Ella, Anlaby and Hessle to the at: West of the city and Bilton to the www.eastriding.gov.uk/ north east. A separate FRMP has flooding been developed.

Figure 5: The Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice FRA

Background to the Hull drainage system The Hull and Haltemprice drainage system is extensive and complex in nature, comprising open watercourses which flow into culverted drains and sewers and which form part of a combined sewerage system. Sewers close to the estuary date back to Victorian times and were larger than is usual to provide storage during high tides when sewage flows could not be discharged by gravity into the Humber. Open drains used to run through the city but many of these were culverted historically because they were considered to constitute threat to public health and to make room for development. The more recent development in the city (since the 1960’s and 1970’s) is served by conventional combined sewers. The Hull and Haltemprice sewerage system which takes all the flows from the West Hull and surrounding areas, is connected by gravity to the Salt End Pumping Station via a 3.6m diameter transfer sewer routed adjacent to the estuary. Salt End Pumping Station lifts flows to the city’s waste water treatment works. In the event of very high rainfall, diluted sewage flows exceeding the Salt and Pumping station’s capacity are screened and discharged into the estuary by means of an overflow at Salt End and two pumping stations at East and West Hull. East Hull pumping station also lifts fluvial flows from Holderness Drain in the event of high water levels in the estuary. It should be noted that the Bransholme and Kingswood area are served by their own surface water drainage system terminating at the Bransholme pumping station which discharges collected water directly into the River Hull. There is also a storage lagoon at Bransholme providing attenuation of surface water during high river flows. Sewage from Bransholme and Kingswood drains into the Hull and Haltemprice drainage system. In general, Hull City Council is responsible for road gullies up to their connection into the conveyance system. Responsibility for open drains in the Hull drainage system varies depending on the watercourse and includes Hull City Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, and the Environment Agency and in some cases riparian owners. Riparian owners are landowners who live alongside or on have a culverted watercourse underground. Unless stated in the deeds of a property, if a property is adjacent to a ditch, river or dyke then the legal assumption is that property owns up to the middle line of that watercourse are under riparian ownership. With this ownership come rights and responsibilities. These are laid out in the following publication https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/riverside-ownershiprights- and-responsibilities. In summary, these responsibilities relate to the upkeep of watercourses and allowing water to flow unhindered and free from pollution. Responsibility for the sewer network and operation of the pumping stations (West Hull, East Hull, Salt End and Bransholme) rests with Yorkshire Water. Yorkshire Water have an agreement with the Environment Agency to cover the operation of the fluvial section of the pumping station at East Hull which is used to pull flows from the Holderness drain in to the Humber estuary if require at high tide. The Kingston upon Hull area: Hydrology There are two drainage systems within the city; a fluvial drainage system comprising the River Hull, the Beverley and Barnston Drain and Holderness Drain. This system brings in flows from outside the city, predominantly land to the north, which is then discharged to the Humber and ultimately the North Sea. The second system is the Hull and Haltemprice drainage system which provides the drainage infrastructure for the city and the surrounding areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire. This drainage system predominantly consists of sewers, piped systems underground with associated pumping required due to little fall in the ground levels with a number of

open water courses that feed into the underground system eventually. This means flows need to be pumped to generate flow as gravity alone is not sufficient. The fluvial drainage system drains rural areas to the north of the city in the River Hull valley and includes large areas of the Yorkshire Wolds in its headwaters as well as low lying agricultural areas in its middle and lower reaches. With the general exception of the Bransholme and Kingswood area, the fluvial drainage system does not provide any surface water drainage capacity for the city. This means that Hull has a unique situation in that almost the entire storm drainage of the city is discharged through Yorkshire Water's piped drainage system and terminal pumping stations. The sewer system does not discharge to the nearest watercourse but instead is piped around the city via the West and East Hull Pumping station and the Humbercare sewage transfer system to the Waste Water Treatment Works at Saltend and discharged to the Humber. The Kingston upon Hull area: Geology and soils The impact of geology on flood risk is determined by the permeability of rocks and overlying soils. Geological data shows that chalk underlies the city. As chalk is permeable, a greater proportion of rainfall could infiltrate into the ground depending on overlying soil or the presence of infiltration devices. Maximising infiltration would reduce the amount of surface run off which reaches rivers, which in turn reduces peak flows by delaying the transport of water from the catchment into the watercourses. The permeable chalk underlying the city should enable infiltration devices, such as soakaways and other Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Soils affect a number of factors relating to the time it takes rainfall to enter river channel. The permeability of a soil affects the amount of rainfall which will infiltrate into the soil rather than run off the surface of it. It also affects the speed at which water will percolate through the soil into the underlying geology. Within Hull City the chalk bedrock is overlain by tills composed of loam, clays, sands and gravels which are a product of glacial deposition from the ice sheets of the ice age. The predominant soil type in the city is seasonally wet deep clay, which typically has a low permeability, which naturally would cause much of the rainfall to run off the surface as opposed to infiltrate into the soil. There is also a high water table in the city due to the close proximity of the aquifers within the chalk. This factor combined with the clay soils means that little water can soak into the ground and therefore has to be routed to a discharge point. The Kingston upon Hull area: Summary of risk The issue of flooding in the city of Hull is not new or recent. As with many cities around the world the location was chosen due to the close proximity of the water to provide the transportation, power and the required work opportunities. With the benefits that this location gave it also brought problems of living with water and having to control nature. There was a an element of acceptance of flood risk due to the fact that it was a consequence of living near employment and that the properties were resilient in the fact that there was less to damage. Flooding from surface water Surface water flooding occurs in two ways normally when intense rainfall, often of short duration, is unable to permeate into the ground or enter drainage systems quickly enough to prevent a build-up of water to an extent that it ponds on or flows across the hard or soft land surface. It can cause considerable problems in urban areas. Surface water flooding can also originate from rural areas where high intensity rainfall can run off fields without entering land drainage systems. Flooding from surface water is hazardous for reasons including its depth, velocity of flow and sometimes its sudden presence in areas with little warning. It is difficult to warn and

prepare for surface water flooding as its dependant on many factors; how empty are the sewers, how localised is the rainfall and how saturated is the ground beforehand. The most significant surface water flooding incident occurred in June 2007 when Hull experienced high volumes of rainfall. Over 70mm of rain fell on the 15th June with further precipitation over the next few days leading up to the 25th June where over 105mm of rainfall was recorded. The ground was heavily saturated following the prolonged rainfall and this resulted in severe flooding causing city wide disruption with damage to over 1300 businesses, over 8600 properties and the loss of life. Flooding from the sewerage system The vast majority of Hull City drains into a combined sewerage system where rainwater mixes with domestic and commercial sewage. Flooding can result when the sewer capacity is overwhelmed by high inflow, when the sewer becomes blocked or when the sewer is of inadequate capacity for the area it drains. For example a frequent situation that occurs in West Hull is when rain falling on the areas outside of the city flows into the sewers, they rapidly fill. By the time the sewers have reached the city they are already full and therefore there is little capacity left for runoff from the roads and properties within the city. To meet requirements set by the Office of Water Trading (OFWAT), water companies must record all instances of sewer flooding where flooding has resulted from rainfall events in a level of service ‘DG5 register’. In such circumstances internal flooding is defined as ‘flooding that enters a building or passes below a suspended floor’. External flooding is defined as ‘flooding which is not classed as internal’ for example flooding of gardens and other open spaces. Properties at risk are ‘properties that have suffered or are likely to suffer internal flooding from public foul, combined or surface water sewers due to the sewerage system being overloaded’. Water and Sewerage Companies in the UK set a minimum design standard for new sewers to ensure there is no flooding during rainfall events of 3.3% annual probability (1in30 event) of occurrence or higher. It should be noted that the DG5 register only records flooding from sewers not all incidents of surface water flooding. Flooding from groundwater Groundwater flooding occurs as a result of water rising up from the underlying rocks or from water flowing from abnormal springs. This tends to occur after much longer periods of sustained high rainfall. Generally groundwater flooding occurs during the winter and spring when groundwater levels reach their peak and start to come above ground in low lying areas. Groundwater flooding takes longer to dissipate because groundwater moves much more slowly than surface water and will take time to flow away underground. Groundwater flooding most commonly occurs in the areas which lie on the edge of the Wolds, to the west of Hull, as these are the locations where the major aquifers come to the surface. Occasional and sporadic elevated groundwater levels in the Cottingham area have caused flooding in the past, and this will contribute to surface water flooding as the water has nowhere to go. Therefore it flows into low spots within the city which frequently means flooding of properties, roads and infrastructure. Flooding from the sea Tidal flooding in the River Hull catchment is primarily from the Humber Estuary. Flooding from the Humber can occur either because the tide level in the estuary rises above the level of existing defences along the estuary shoreline including those along the various dock frontages within the city of Hull, or because water from the estuary flows up the river and causes water levels to rise above the river defences.

Flooding from tidal ingress is not a new issue as between 1854 and 1953 the main challenge for Hull was to prevent tidal ingress whilst still allowing fresh water to drain. Improvements began from 1700 and continued with the use of windmills (engines) built to pump the land. Much of the area around the river Hull area is very low lying and the relationship between the rivers and drains, the Humber Estuary, groundwater and surface water is complex. Below is a list of tidal flooding records for Hull between 1788 and 1999 taken from http://dro.dur.ac.uk/1072/1/1072.pdf  1788  1 March 1936  29 January 1850  14 October 1954  17 December 1921  11 November 1954  10 October 1923  30 December 1959  22 March 1928  20 January 1965  24 September 1930  3 January 1976 The Environment Agency has extensive flood defence assets within the city along the banks of both the River Hull and the Humber Estuary, consisting of embankments, flood walls, pumping stations and the Hull tidal surge barrier. A smaller network of Hull City Council, Beverley and North Holderness Internal Drainage Board (IDB) and privately maintained flood defence infrastructure is also present within the city. The River Hull water levels through the city are dominated by the tidal Humber levels and are not significantly affected by fluvial flooding, which is dominant in the headwaters and middle reaches of the River Hull. With the construction of the River Hull Tidal Surge Barrier in 1980, effectively sealing the river from the Humber, and preventing high tides and tidal surges from moving up the river and flooding parts of the city and the low-lying areas beyond the people of Hull began to feel relatively safe. The tidal surge of 5th December 2013 saw a level of 5.8mAOD recorded level at the tidal surge barrier, its’ highest ever level. The role of the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier was recognised and rightly celebrated by many in the city. The barrier was, however, within 40cm of being overwhelmed by the tidal levels and other defences in Victoria Dock Village and St Andrews Quay were similarly at their design limits and only narrowly avoided overtopping. Significant ingress of flood waters occurred into the English Street area and flows spread into the city centre and as far as Hessle Road to the west, flood damage to 157 businesses and 135 residential properties has been recorded. Flooding from the River Hull The River Hull serves as both navigation and a drainage channel. It rises from a series of springs to the west of Driffield, and enters the Humber estuary. It is classed as a high level system as it is largely raised above existing ground level. Most of its course is through low lying land that is at or just above sea level, and flooding has been a long-standing problem. Drainage schemes to alleviate it were constructed on both sides of the river. The Holderness Drainage scheme to the east was completed in 1772, with a second phase in 1805, and the Beverley and Barmston Drain to the west was completed in 1810. The lower catchment area covers the River Hull from the northern city limits of Kingston-upon-Hull, just downstream of Wawne on the east side of the River Hull and downstream of the B1233 /A1165 on the west side of the River Hull, to the Humber Estuary. As noted above, flooding in the lower catchment is more influenced by the tide than by fluvial flows.

Figure 6: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Hull and Haltemprice FRA

Table 3: Summary of flooding from rivers and the sea within the Hull and Haltemprice FRA

Total in High Mediu Low risk Very low FRA risk m risk risk Risk to people: No of people: 336,550 1000 48,300 239,400 <50 No of services: 350 <50 50 250 0

Risk to economic activity: No of non-residential properties: 19,800 250 3,800 11,800 <50 No of airports: 0 - - - - Roads (km): 70 <10 10 50 0 Railway (km): 30 0 <10 20 0 Agricultural land (ha): 5,100 50 300 600 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 50m: 14 2 5 7 0 SAC (ha): 200 50 0 1 0 SPA (ha): 200 50 0 1 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 200 50 0 1 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 200 0 0 0 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 50 <50 <50 <50 0 SAM (ha): <50 0 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 580 30 200 250 0 No of Licensed water abstractions: 30 <10 <10 <10 0

Flooding from reservoirs Flood risk from reservoirs within the FRA is significantly lower than other sources. Less than 200 non-residential properties are at risk and just 1% of people. Although the consequence of reservoir flooding is high, the chance of this occurring is low. The continued maintenance of reservoirs, as per the legal requirements, significantly reduces the risk of flooding from reservoirs.

Table 4: Summary of flooding from reservoirs within the Hull and Haltemprice FRA

Total in FRA Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: No of people: 33,6550 4,250 No of services: 370 <10 Risk to economic activity: No of non-residential properties: 19,800 150 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 70 0 Railway (km): 30 0 Agricultural land (ha): 5,100 50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 14 0 SAC(ha): 200 0 SPA(ha): 200 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 200 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 200 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): <50 0 SAM (ha): <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 600 0 No of Licensed water abstractions: <50 0

Figure 7: Flood risk from reservoirs in the Hull and Haltemprice FRA

The Kingston upon Hull area: Objectives for managing risk This FRMP has been developed using the outputs of the draft Hull City Council LFRMS. This Strategy has two main goals: 1. To reduce the impact of flooding 2. To provide knowledge and assist understanding of flood risk in Hull These goals above underpin all the outcomes, actions and objectives. Flooding is a natural process and it is not possible keep it from happening. The role of the LLFA is to manage flooding in such a way that it can occur without causing harm and disruption to lives and property. The focus of the Strategy, therefore, is very much on reducing the impact of flooding rather than eliminating it altogether. The LFRMS has identified a number of objectives associated with the prevention, protection, preparedness and recovery and review of flooding. These, along with their associated measures, are designed to improve Hulls residents and businesses greater resiliencies to flooding and take the opportunity to improve the city’s environment. These objectives are: Prevention  Acknowledging the unique situation in Hull where the city is almost entirely within Flood Zone 2 and 3 and influenced by all sources of flood risk. Ensure development is located to ensure that flood risk is appropriately considered and mitigated for  Understand Hulls development needs and environmental management responsibilities to better align with flood risk obligations Protection  Effectively manage flood risk associated with existing development and infrastructure by the provision of flood defence schemes  To seek environmental enhancement opportunities and multi benefits wherever possible through the implementation of integrated flood risk management measures and schemes  Maximise coordination and partnership working with all Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) to deliver a sustainable way of maintaining existing and future flood defence works and watercourses which meet aspirations and requirements under the WFD Preparing  Work to and inform the insurance industry on their understanding of flood risk in Hull and aim for affordable and realistic insurance and effective flood risk cover is available for all  Work in partnership with all RMAs ad Emergency Planning to enhance community emergency plans and flood warning uptake  Encourage proactive, appropriate maintenance of privately owned defences and drainage assets, such as defences along the River Hull  All local RMAs to understand key issues within the catchment area and continue to raise awareness of the risk of flooding within Hull, both now and in the future Recovery and review  Ensure co-ordinated efficient emergency response to flooding to ensure that the communities of Hull are kept safe and disruption is minimised  Investigate, learn and share knowledge from flood incidents to inform future actions and investment need The objectives associated with the management of flood risk within the Haltemprice villages can be viewed on East Riding of Yorkshire Councils website using the link provided in Table 2.

The Environment Agency has identified a number of objectives associated with the management of flooding from rivers, sea and reservoir. Table 5 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Hull and Haltemprice FRA. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 5: Relevant objectives: Hull and Haltemprice FRA

Reference Objective Relevant? SOC 1 Understanding Flood Risk and Working in Partnership  SOC 2 Community Preparedness and Resilience  SOC 3 Reduce Community Disruption  SOC 4 Flood Risk and Development  SOC 5 Reduce risk to people  ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  As previously noted, North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council have volunteered to include their local flooding information from their LFRMS. Within these strategies the councils set out their own objectives for managing local flood risk within their administrative areas. Figure 31 shows the objectives that these councils are aiming to deliver. Objectives relating to the management of coastal issues can be found in the relevant coastal strategies which can be viewed here. The Kingston upon Hull area: Measures for managing risk As described in the description and background to the Hull and Haltemprice catchment, the issues in Hull are complex and unique. The measures required to address the risk of all sources of flooding is not a task that one single RMA can achieve. To fulfil the goal of reducing flood risk from all sources and improving the environment for the communities who live and work in the catchment; partnership working is key. The measures identified are set to target efforts of all partners involved, including the community, to work together. Although reflected in the table of measures in Annex 2, it is worth noting the importance of a number of key partnership projects that are currently ongoing which will provide significant outcomes for Hull. These key partnership projects are listed in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Ongoing projects within the Kingston upon Hull area

Source of flooding Defence scheme Timescale Lead and support Est. cost Funding stream

detail

Not started Not Ongoing Allocated River Albert Dock Humber Short Environment Agency £6M Environment Agency  defence wall Hull City Council LEP Surface water Willerby and Short- Environment Agency £15M ERDF  Derringham FAS medium Hull City Council Surface water Cottingham and Medium- East Riding of Yorkshire Council £22M ERDF  Orchard Park FAS long Hull City Council Surface water Anlaby and East Ella Long £19M ERDF  FAS Surface water Hull and Holderness Long £30M ERDF  FAS River River Hull Defences Medium- Environment Agency £37M FDGiA  long Hull City Council (yrs 1-5 only) River Humber frontage first Environment Agency £19M FDGiA  phase 1-6yrs Hull City Council Surface water Willerby and Short Hull City Council £10-15M Hull City Council  Wymersey FAS Surface water Barbara Robson Short Hull City Council £10 Hull City Council  playing fields FAS Sewer Bransholme pumping Yorkshire Water Services £16M Yorkshire Water  station Services Surface water/ River Hull Integrated Medium - East Riding of Yorkshire Council £50M FDGiA  river Catchment Strategy long Hull City Council Environment Agency Yorkshire Water Services Please note that the measures identified in this FRMP are based on the Kingston upon Hull area and has been taken from the draft LFRMS. All information regarding the Haltemprice villages, including a list of measures, can be viewed on East Riding of Yorkshire Councils website using the link provided in Table 2.

2.2. The West Midlands Flood Risk Area

The West Midlands FRA crosses into the Severn RBD, but is being reported under the Humber RBD in which it predominantly sits. The West Midlands FRA covers an area of approximately 700km2 and has a population of around 2.2 million people. It is a largely urban area dominated by the City of Birmingham, and an area historically known as the Black Country (Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton) as well as parts of Solihull, Staffordshire and Worcestershire. Following the identification of a FRA, the responsible LLFA is required to develop a FRMP which sets out the objectives and measures being taken forward to manage local sources of flooding. To meet this requirement all relevant LLFAs have included their objectives and measures within this plan. These LLFAs are:

LFRMS for these authorities are currently under development and these will set out how the LLFAs will carry out their roles and responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA). The River Tame and its tributaries dominate the area, with the River Stour catchment affecting parts of Dudley and Wolverhampton. The two catchments are primarily fed by high ground to the south of the area, namely the Lickey, Wasely and Clent Hills. Significant flows can also be attributed to large volumes of surface water runoff generated by the urban environment. Geology and soils The underlying geology of the region comprises sandstones across the River Stour and Smestow Brook catchments, with mudstones dominating across the Tame, Rea and Cole catchments. Deposits of sand and gravels characterise the superficial geology of the area.

Figure 8: Overview of the West Midlands FRA

Hydrology The hydrology of the West Midlands FRA is complex with multiple sources of flood risk influenced by a combination of natural features and artificial influences. The River Tame rises on moderately permeable geology dominated by coal measures West of Birmingham and flows north eastward through the highly urbanised west midlands conurbation. Although the main geology is moderately permeable, drainage is impeded by the overlying loamy clay soil. In addition, the headwaters of the Tame upstream of Walsall drain relatively high, sloping ground resulting in a fast runoff response to rainfall. The combined effect of high runoff volumes upstream and rapid high runoff volumes from the urban areas results in frequent fluvial and surface water flooding following storm events. The River Stour rises on permeable new red sandstone on the north-eastern edge of the Clent Hills with its tributary Smestow Brook having its source in the Springfield area, to the north-east of Wolverhampton city centre. Large parts of the area are characterised by a long history of development and industrialisation during which many of the local rivers and brooks were culverted. For this reason, there are few open watercourses flowing and the risk of fluvial flooding is relatively low. The natural environment Recent ecological studies have highlighted significant clusters of flora that can be found throughout the Birmingham and Black Country conurbations. Furthermore, a number of botanical walks, local nature areas and SSSIs have been designated across the region, for example, Sandwell Valley and Sutton Park. Fens Pools Special Area of Conservation (SAC) near Dudley comprises three canal feeder reservoirs and a series of smaller pools. The site shows evidence of past industrial activities and includes a wide range of habitats from open water, swamp, fen and inundation communities to unimproved neutral and acidic grassland and scrub. Due to the industrial heritage of this area, there are a large number of obstructions present within watercourses. A significant number of weirs and sluice structures have been identified as preventing the passage of fish and inhibiting natural geomorphologic processes. Invasive, non-native species pose a significant threat in this catchment with a significant amount of work being required to control further spread across the area. Partnership working Within the West Midlands FRA the Environment Agency has been working hard to develop key strategic partnerships with a view to the long term delivery of flood risk and environmental improvements. Birmingham City Council, Severn Trent Water and the Environment Agency have come together to form the River Rea Partnership which will look to deliver community flood defence assets across Birmingham. This project looks to build on successful partnership projects that have already been delivered across Birmingham and the Black Country. Elsewhere across the area, links have been developed with the Wildlife Trusts, Canal and River Trust and the other LLFAs and RMAs to develop future flood defence schemes and community flood protection / warning programmes. These core partnerships are also looking for support from the private sector with a number of businesses already being approached to enable and support future flood defence schemes on the River Rea, River Cole and River Tame.

The West Midlands Flood Risk Area: Summary of risk The heavily urbanised nature of the West Midlands FRA makes it susceptible to different types of flooding, from rivers, surface water and groundwater, as well as risks from sewers, reservoirs and canals. Flooding is usually caused by natural weather events such as heavy intense storms or prolonged extensive rainfall when the volume of water overflows and inundates land which is usually dry. Due to the nature of the landscape and the urban nature of the area, flash floods are frequently experienced and people often have little time to prepare or evacuate. There are other factors which can cause or contribute to flooding these include:  Inadequate maintenance of watercourses  Blockage or collapse of sewer networks  Blocked highway gullies  Insufficient drainage networks  Inadequate flood defence schemes  Inappropriate development in floodplains  Inappropriate design of buildings, car parks etc There is a long history of flooding across the West Midlands FRA and recent years have seen a number of flooding events affecting the area. During these events there were reports of flooding from watercourses, surface water, sewers and groundwater. However due to the urbanised nature of the catchment there are often significant interactions between sources of flooding and it is not always possible to establish the source of the flooding. Flooding from rivers Nearly 50,000 people are at risk from river flooding in the West Midlands FRA with around 5,000 of these considered to be high risk. Nearly 5,300 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers of which around 600 are considered to be high risk. The River Tame, being a significant tributary of the River Trent, is the largest watercourse affecting flood risk in the West Midlands FRA. Whilst a number of heavily modified tributaries affect the Sandwell and Walsall areas, the two most significant tributaries of the River Tame are the River Rea and River Cole, which flow through Birmingham and Solihull respectively. Wolverhampton and Dudley are primarily drained by the Smestow Brook and River Stour catchments, with a number of small tributaries posing significant flood risk to local communities. Siltation and blockage of key structures is a significant issue across a number of watercourses in this area, with low energy summer flows and consistent fly tipping in certain areas of the urban environment proving detrimental. There are a number of flood defence schemes in operation across the FRA and there are plans to reduce flood risk to around 1,400 properties at risk from the River Tame in Perry Barr and Witton in Birmingham.

Table 7: Summary of flood risk from rivers within the West Midlands FRA

Total in High Mediu Low Very FRA risk m risk risk low risk Risk to people: No of people: 2,200,350 4,950 21,810 19,550 360 No of services: 2,080 20 30 40 <10

Risk to economic activity: No of non-residential properties: 115,700 600 1,850 2,750 50 No of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 560 10 20 20 0 Railway (km): 220 <10 <10 20 0 Agricultural land (ha): 7,850 50 115 100 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment: No of EU designated bathing waters 0 - - - - within 50m: No of EPR installations within 50m: 83 1 7 11 0 SAC (ha): <50 0 0 0 0 SPA (ha): 0 - - - - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 800 0 0 0 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,200 <50 <50 <50 0 SAM (ha): 600 0 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,480 10 20 50 <10 No of Licensed water abstractions: 160 10 20 20 0

Figure 9: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the West Midlands FRA

Flooding from reservoirs There are a number of large raised reservoirs within the FRA, primarily used for water supply, irrigation, flood defence and leisure. A number of significant water supply reservoirs can be found across the Birmingham area including Bartley Reservoir and Edgbaston Reservoir. Around 3% of the population are at risk of flooding from reservoirs along with over 100 services. Around 5,600 non residential properties lie within the maximum reservoir flood extent, equating to less than 1% of the FRA. Just over 60 km of the road and rail network is at risk of reservoir flooding which would impact significantly on the FRA. Due to the urban nature of the FRA, only a small amount of agricultural land (222ha) and natural/historic environment assets are at risk within the maximum flood extent. Table 8: Summary of flood risk from reservoirs within the West Midlands FRA

Total in Maximum FRA extent of flooding Risk to people: No of people: 2,200,350 65,250 No of services: 2,100 100

Risk to economic activity: No of non-residential properties: 115,700 5,650 No of airports: 1 0 Roads (km): 560 40 Railway (km): 220 20 Agricultural land (ha): 7,850 200

Risk to the natural and historic environment: No of EU designated bathing waters within 0 - 50m: No of EPR installations within 50m: 83 12 SAC(ha): <50 <50 SPA(ha): 0 - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 800 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,200 0 SAM (ha): 600 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,480 0 No of Licensed water abstractions: 160 0

Figure 10: Flood risk from Reservoirs in the West Midlands FRA

Flooding from local sources The heavily urbanised nature and steep sided valleys result in quite a high susceptibility to localised surface water flooding during periods of intense rainfall. Furthermore, whilst many of the culverts within the area have a sizeable capacity, there always remains a potential risk of blockage, resulting in localised flooding. Surface water and sewer flooding are significant issues throughout the FRA, with communities in Birmingham, Solihull, and Dudley having experienced surface water flooding in recent years. The Environment Agency Flood Maps for Surface Water show the extent to which surface water flooding could affect the region. It is inevitable that localised flooding problems arising from under capacity drainage and/or sewer systems will occur, particularly given the mounting pressure placed upon ageing systems as a result of climate change. There are no major groundwater flooding issues within the FRA. However, a reduction in abstraction across Birmingham and the Black Country through a termination of historical industrial processes has resulted in rising ground water levels, which has resulted in some isolated instances of low level ground water flooding.

Figure 11: Flood risk from surface water in the West Midlands FRA

The West Midlands Flood Risk Area: Objectives for managing risk Primarily an urban area with a large population, the West Midlands FRA offers a number of significant opportunities for flood defence and environmental improvements. The catchment is heavily modified with little space being made available for water. As a result of encroaching human populations and increased surface water runoff there is a significant risk of flooding from a number of sources throughout the area. The development of key partnerships and innovative approaches to scheme design will enable some exciting opportunities to be realised in the future. A number of flood defence infrastructure projects are anticipated in this area over the coming years with there already being a lot of focus on flood risk from authorities and communities throughout the FRA. The objectives when preparing this FRMP have been as follows:

Social  Reduce risk to people  Consider flood risk in development  Promote understanding of flood plans risk and work in partnership  Maintain existing assets that  Prepare communities and build protect people resilience  River, watercourse and tidal  Minimise community disruption defence maintenance Economic  Reduce economic damage  Consider flood risk to agricultural  Maintain existing assets that land protect business  Protect tourism when undertaking  Protect transport services flood risk management Environmental  Achieve WFD objectives through  Protect designated nature flood risk management conservation sites  Protect designated heritage sites

The West Midlands Flood Risk Area: Measures for managing risk There are 47 measures to manage flood risk including: Preventing risk: 29 measures  Improving management of surface water.  Avoiding inappropriate development in floodplains.  Deculverting of watercourses.  Reinstating natural river channels and restoring functional floodplains.

Preparing for risk: 2 measures  Sustainable management of urban rivers and floodplains.  Development and implementation of LFRMS.

Protecting from risk: 16 measures  Managing and reducing surface water flood risk.  Investigating potential solutions for flood risk mitigation.

 Implementing actions from LFRMS.

Recovery and review of risk:  There are no proposed measures in this category, over and above existing flood risk work. The measures are described more fully in section 9 Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Please note that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be carried out in many cases and will; be subject to availability of funding.

2.3. The Leicester Principal Urban Area Flood Risk Area

The area primarily covers the administrative area of Leicester City Council shared with Leicestershire County Council, as seen in Figure 12. The area, however, also extends to cover areas outside of the City boundary to account for hydrological inflows beyond the City Council boundary and to also cover proposed regeneration areas and major potential developments. Leicester dates back to pre-roman times when it was the capital of the Celtic Corieltuvi tribe. Occupying an important strategic location adjacent to the River Soar, the historic core of the city was founded on relatively high land but growth to the north and south made the city vulnerable to prolonged flooding from the river. The ground rises steeply to the east and west and a number of large watercourses flow quickly towards the River Soar through heavily populated areas. This topography makes Leicester particularly vulnerable to flooding following heavy downpours or prolonged periods of rain. Rivers There are numerous watercourses within the Leicester Principal Urban Area (PUA) some of which are designated as Main River and others as OWs. The River Soar, which has a catchment area of 1,384 km2, is a major right bank tributary of the River Trent. It rises near Hinckley in Leicestershire and flows northeast to Leicester where it is joined from the east by the River Sence. The River Soar flows northwards within the FRA. The Main River tributaries of the River Soar in Leicester are Melton Brook, Braunstone Brook, Saffron Brook and Willow Brook. The Grand Union Canal also passes through the city centre, alongside the River Soar. The route of the River Soar is geologically controlled, flowing along the line of the Soar Fault south of Leicester. The River Soar is heavily modified, with its navigable sections effectively forming connecting reaches of the Grand Union Canal as it passes through Leicester City. Leicester City Council and Leicestershire County Council have responsibility for OWs in this area, many of which have been culverted and artificially straightened. The more significant of these include Hol Brook, Wash Brook, Ethel Brook, Portwey Brook and Gilroes Brook. Land Use and Population The area is characterised by dense urban concentrations; few distinct settlements exist due to the compact urban nature of the City. The Leicester City Core Strategy divides the City into three categories: Inner Areas, Outer Estate Areas and Suburbs. The Inner Areas includes the predominantly Council built neighbourhoods and Victorian terraced private housing which stretch from the edges of the City Centre. The Outer Estate Areas consist of mainly large scale 20th Century council built housing areas on or near the edges of the City. The Suburbs consist mainly of larger private housing with gardens. Leicester PUA has a diverse multicultural population of approximately 413,000 with over 70 languages spoken.

Figure 12: The Leicester Principal Urban Area FRA

Geology and Ecology The area is underlain by a mixed solid geology of the Upper Triassic period consisting of various sedimentary deposits including Rhaetic Beds, Keuper Marls and Sandstones. These are overlain by a drift geology consisting of moderately permeable soils which can act to impede infiltration leading to up to 40% of rainfall running off. There are no internationally or nationally designated sites along the River Soar through Leicester, although there are six Local Nature Reserves (LNR) which have statutory protection and 28 non-statutory Local Wildlife Sites within 1km of the river. The river corridor is widely recognised as an important area for biodiversity and public space enhancements and is a key geographical feature within the Waterside Regeneration Area identified by Leicester City Council. The Leicester Principal Urban Area: Summary of risk The area is at significant risk of flooding from a variety of sources. The dominant sources include flooding from rivers, the land (surface water) and sewers. This complex system presents challenges to flood risk management, particularly in the confluence areas where raised defences could protect property against flood risk from one source but actually increase flood risk from other sources. The flood risk is exacerbated by a number of constrictions to the flow within the River Soar. These include redundant railway bridges with partial blockages, substantial lengths of river with deposition within the channel and historic land rising within the floodplain. River Flooding Flooding from rivers can occur as a result of the channel capacity being exceeded, a blockage occurring or as a result of culverted sections surcharging. Leicester has been subject to flooding from various watercourses in past. Existing flood risk data shows that there is a significant risk of flooding from rivers to parts of the area. The River Soar flows through the centre of Leicester and presents the greatest fluvial flood risk to the area. The City has limited formal flood defences to protect against flooding from the River Soar. Fortunately, no recent floods have caused large scale property flooding; however, the Environment Agency and Leicester City Council are pursuing an integrated approach to reducing flood risk from all sources. A flood event occurred in November 2012, which the Environment Agency estimates at between a 1 in 10-year (10%) and a 1 in 20-year (5%) chance of flooding in a year. The Soar came very close to flooding in excess of 1,000 residential and commercial properties in the Belgrave and Abbey Meadows areas of the city. Several OWs have caused flooding in the past and some records exist for these incidents. The main consequences appear to be flooding to roads and gardens, but properties have also been affected. OWs that are known to have flooded include Portwey Brook, Ethel Brook, Gilroes Brook, Hol Brook and Wash Brook.

Table 9: Summary of flood risk from rivers in the Leicester PUA FRA

Total in High Medium Low Very FRA risk risk risk low risk Risk to people: No of people: 413,350 4,700 12,350 23,150 100 No of services: 450 20 50 30 0

Risk to economic activity: No of non-residential properties: 23,400 600 1,000 1,750 <50 No of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 100 <10 <10 <10 0 Railway (km): 30 <10 0 0 0 Agricultural land (ha): 2,800 100 60 40 <10

Risk to the natural and historic environment: No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 9 4 0 0 0 50m: SAC (ha): 0 - - - - SPA (ha): 0 - - - - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI within area (ha): <50 0 0 0 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 100 <50 <50 <50 0 SAM (ha): <50 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 480 10 <10 20 0 No of Licensed water 20 <10 <10 0 0 abstractions:

Figure 13: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Leicester PUA FRA

Reservoir Flooding There are several notable flood storage reservoirs in Leicester (examples include the Dakyn Road basin on Bushby Brook, the Knighton Park basins on Wash Brook and the Braunstone Park basins on Braunstone Brook). Within the PUA there are over 17,000 residential properties that are at risk of flooding in the event of a failure or overtopping of the reservoir dam walls. A further 1,300 non-residential properties are also at risk, as well as around 100ha of agricultural land, in the event of such an occurrence affecting the reservoirs in the area. Table 10: Summary of flood risk from reservoirs in the Leicester PUA FRA

Total in FRA Maximum extent of flooding Risk to people: No of people: 413,350 17,250 No of services: 450 20

Risk to economic activity: No of non-residential properties: 23,400 1,350 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 90 <10 Railway (km): 30 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 2,800 100

Risk to the natural and historic environment: o N of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 9 2 SAC(ha): 0 - SPA(ha): 0 - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): <50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 100 <50 SAM (ha): 50 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 480 20 No of Licensed water abstractions: 20 10

Figure 14: Flood risk from reservoirs in the Leicester PUA FRA

Surface Water and Sewer Flooding The Leicester PUA has been identified as one of ten FRAs across England and Wales by Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG). According to Leicester City Council’s SWMP, 17,414 properties are predicted to be at risk during the in 200 rainfall event. Pluvial/surface water flooding has historically and continues to be a significant problem in Leicester. The flashy nature and short duration of such events has made them difficult to predict and protect against. Table 11: Flood risk from surface water in the Leicester PUA FRA

Total in High Medium Low FRA risk risk risk Risk to people: No of people: 413,350 5,200 9,650 42,350 No of services: 450 20 <10 50

Risk to economic activity: No of non-residential properties: 23,400 2,000* 600* 1,400* No of airports: 0 - - - Roads (km): 100 <10 10 20 Railway (km): 30 <10 <10 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 2,800 100 100 250

Risk to the natural and historic environment: No of EU designated bathing waters 0 - - - within 50m: No of EPR installations within 50m: 9 6 2 1 SAC (ha): 0 - - - SPA (ha): 0 - - - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - SSSI within area (ha): <50 0 0 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 100 <50 <50 <50 SAM (ha): <50 <50 <50 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 480 10 <10 10 No of Licensed water abstractions: 20 <10 0 <10

* Data from Leicester City Council Surface Water Management Plan Part 1 – May 2012

Figure 15: Flood risk from surface water in the Leicester PUA FRA

Much of the sewer network in Leicester dates back to Victorian times, though the majority of the sewer system has been modelled and information is available regarding capacity and condition of the network. Flooding has been recorded at numerous locations in the study area. This includes both surface water and foul water and both internal flooding and external flooding. The most recent surface water flooding in the area occurred in June 2012 when surface runoff from a particularly intense rainfall event caused both Hol and Gilroes Brooks to flood onto the surrounding roads and backup into multiple residents gardens and houses, particularly on Fosse Road South and Carisbrooke Road.

Surface water flooding on Carisbrooke Gardens flooding from Hol Brook, 28th Road, Leicester 28th June 2013 June 2013

Figure 16: Critical Drainage areas and flooding hotspots identified for Leicester PUA

Canal Flooding The Grand Union Canal passes through Leicester and, in many instances, combines with the River Soar. There are a few instances where the canal is embanked or artificially raised above surrounding ground levels. The canal passes through the Leicester Core Strategy Strategic Regeneration Area and along the Belgrave area before rejoining with a navigable reach of the River Soar and passing out north of the City. Records from British Waterways have recorded one instance of a canal structure breach within Leicester, a failure of the Freemans Meadow weir, lock and sluice system was recorded in 1986, however, there is no information relating to whether flooding occurred to the surrounding area, or the consequences of this flooding. Groundwater Flooding Groundwater flooding incidents are thought to have occurred in the area in the past and have affected basements, cellars and other underground facilities. It is often unclear as to whether the flooding is caused as a result of high groundwater levels or as a result of nearby drainage and distribution networks (burst water pipes, broken sewers etc.) or other local factors. Inadequate waterproofing and tanking in older buildings may also contribute to this. Wider Catchment Issues with an Impact on Flood Risk Management Impacts of Potential Major Development Surrounding Leicester Leicester City Council have assessed the flood risk to and from potential major development areas within and surrounding Leicester. This highlighted possible development and flood risk issues and provided FRA guidance and policy recommendations. A full description of each of the potential major development sites along with a summary of flood risk can be found in the Leicester City Council Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (2012). For the management of surface water within Leicester to be effective, it is also necessary to consider the possible surface water runoff that potential major development around Leicester may produce. Therefore, a high level assessment of surface water runoff from potential major development areas around Leicester was carried out as part of the Leicester City Council Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) (2012). Land Use Management Siltation and excessive nutrients, within watercourses, from agriculture are exacerbated by inputs from sewage treatment works and private sewerage systems. This siltation can cause a particular problem for effective flood risk management. Improvements in catchment land use can not only reduce sediment delivery to the river channel, but can also reduce surface run-off and as a result flood peaks. This is a known problem in the Soar channel and tributaries due to the heavily modified channel. The Upper Soar catchment was highlighted as a priority area in the ‘Farming for Water for the Future Trent Catchment study. This project has shown that it is possible to work with landowners to carryout capital works that both store flood water and delay the rate at which it flows downstream. Both of these approaches if delivered across a wider catchment would have a cumulative effect of reducing the risk of properties flooding downstream in Leicester and are being considered as part of the wider Leicester Integrated FRM Strategy. The first phase of this strategy has identified the build up of silt as an issue along the river corridor through Leicester and the River Soar conveyance project will deliver a

series of green infrastructure improvements along the River Soar to improve the conveyance of floodwater. Flood Risk Management Partnership Leicester City Council is responsible for leading local flood risk management across the City of Leicester and for working in partnership with other neighbouring authorities within the PUA. Much of the local knowledge and technical expertise necessary for the City Council to fulfil their duties as L lies with the City Council and other partner organisations. It is therefore crucial that the City work alongside these groups and organisations as they undertake their responsibilities to ensure effective and consistent management of local flood risk throughout the Leicester PUA. Leicester City Council actively participates in an existing collaborative flood risk partnership in the region. Under the Local Resilience Forum (LRF), a Flood Risk Management Board (FRMB) with representatives from the City Council, Leicestershire County Council, Rutland County Council and other key stakeholders such as the Environment Agency, meet quarterly to review and coordinate LLFA actions and cross-boundary issues. Linked to the FRMB, the LRF also has several working groups which include the Flood Working Group (for flood response) and the Surface Water Management Group (SWaMp). Collaboration between the City, the County and Boroughs/Districts also occurs through Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership. A working group on policies affecting the PUA is co-ordinated by the Housing Planning and Infrastructure Group which can be developed to enable cross-boundary working on flood risk and planning. The Leicester Principal Urban Area: Objectives for managing risk Flood risk in Leicester is complex because of the numerous sources of flooding and the hydrological interactions between:  The River Soar and its main river tributaries  The suburban OWs  The surface water and combined sewer system which drains extensive areas of paved surface in the City  The Grand Union Canal The River Trent Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) was published in 2010. The CFMP sets out the preferred plan for sustainable flood risk management over the next 50 to 100 years. For Leicester the recommendation is Policy 4:  Policy Option 4 – Areas of low, moderate or high flood risk where The Environment Agency are already managing the flood risk effectively but where we may need to take further actions to keep pace with climate change All RMAs need to work together to develop a strategic approach to managing flood risk. Information and evidence from previous reports and studies undertaken by the Environment Agency and Leicester City Council is being built on to develop a strategy that will appraise all forms of flood risk from the River Soar, its associated tributaries and surface water regimes. An Integrated Flood Risk Management Strategy will develop an optimal management plan for the whole of Leicester, the Environment Agency’s Trent CFMP and LFRMS being produced by Leicester City and Leicester County Council will support the actions within this FRMP.

Key messages relating to Leicester

1) Assess long-term opportunities to move development away from the floodplain and create green river corridors through parts of Leicester 2) Work with others to reduce the disruption caused by flooding to transport, particularly the A50 and A47, and several ‘B’ roads around Leicester 3) Minimise the cost of flood damage in Leicester, taking into account future climate change and urban growth 4) Return watercourses to a more natural state, increasing biodiversity and opening up green river corridors through urban areas of Leicester

Our objectives when preparing this FRMP have been as follows: Social  Reduce the number of properties at risk from flooding  Reduce risk to people  Promote understanding of flood risk through engagement with communities  Help residents, property and business owners become more resilient to flood events  Minimise community disruption  Consider flood risk in development plans  Maintain existing assets that protect people  Undertake river, watercourse and defence maintenance  Work in partnership to enhance the quality of open spaces along the river Economic  Reduce economic damage / financial loss as a result of flooding  Maintain existing assets that protect business  Reduce the area of highway under water during a storm event and minimise traffic disruption from flooding  Work in partnership to reduce flood risk in key regeneration areas Environmental  Achieve WFD Objectives through flood risk management  Increase the area of green space in the area contributing to lowering flood risk  Reduce the number of pollution incidents affecting watercourses and improve water quality  Improve the quality of public open space where the opportunity arises.

The Leicester Principal Urban Area: Measures for managing risk There are a number of measures that are currently underway within the Leicester PUA including investigations into how flood risk can be improved for residential properties in Melton Brook, Saffron Brook and Willow Brook catchments. Work is also currently progressing on a similar investigation for the Northfields area of Leicester and Hol Brook. As well as this, a number of measures have been identified to take forward from 2015 and beyond. These include:  Investigations options for reducing flood risk to properties around Egginton Street, Leicester  Identification of options to improve peoples’ ability to prepare for flooding in the dane Hills area  The development of projects, via the Medium Term Plan (MTP), to reduce surface water flood risk to properties on Nedham Street, Oakland Road, Redhill Way and to Leicester Royal Infirmary. It is worth noting that the Leicester Flood Risk Management Scheme is a key project currently being delivered within the FRA and will significant reduce the risk of flooding from multiple sources.

The Leicester Flood Risk Management Scheme The programme of works for this scheme consists of three separate projects, running in parallel. River Soar Conveyance Improvements The first phase of delivery is a series of green infrastructure improvements along the River Soar to improve the conveyance of floodwater. It is anticipated that these initial improvements will reduce the flood risk to over 1000 properties, with at least 450 properties moving into a lower flood risk category. Integrated Flood Risk Management Strategy The second element of the project is the delivery of an Integrated Flood Risk Management Strategy which will address the remaining sources of flooding. This is a partnership between the Environment Agency and Leicester City Council, with input from Severn Trent Water, to identify a medium to long term plan as to how best to manage wider flood risk issues in Leicester. The Strategy focuses on fluvial flood risk but also the interaction with surface water. The findings of the strategy will identify further areas requiring flood risk improvements. Urban Tributary Data Logging Project The third element of the project is the collection of rainfall data and water level data from the smaller watercourses across Leicester. This is also a partnership project between the Environment Agency and Leicester City Council to gather rainfall and water level data. This data will be used for the detailed design of any schemes identified by the Strategy and will also have further value for activities such as improved flood mapping and flood warning.

A detailed list of measures relating to the Leicester PUA can be viewed in Part C: Appendices.

3. Conclusions, objectives and measures to manage flood risk in Humber River Basin District catchments

The following section provides the conclusions of flood risk and the agreed objectives for managing these risks within the 15 catchments located within the Humber RBD. It provides a summary of the required measures to effectively manage these risks as agreed by the Environment Agency and those LLFAs outside of a FRA that have voluntarily included their information from approved Local Flood Risk Management (FRM) Strategies. In developing the measures within the Humber FRMP, the Environment Agency and the RMAs contributing have:  drawn conclusions from hazard and risk maps and other sources of information. This helps us all to understand the risks or opportunities the RMAs are aiming to manage  developed risk management objectives (related to people and society, the economy and the environment) that set out the outcomes that all RMAs are trying to achieve  identified the likely approach to managing risk using the following categories: preventing, preparing, protecting and recovering and review Table 12 clarifies which LLFAs have included the outputs from their LFRMS and provides links to these important planning documents. Table 12: LLFAs that have included their LFRMS outputs within the Humber FRMP (outside of FRA areas)

Relevant management Link to further information catchment  Esk NYCC flood risk pages  Derwent including access to their  Hull and East Riding LFRMS:  Aire and Calder http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/a  Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse rticle/25991  Wharfe and Lower Ouse Northumbria RBD: xxx  Don and Rother North West RBD: xxx  Tees (Northumbria RBD)  Ribble (North West RBD)

 Aire and Calder Kirklees Council flood risk  Don and Rother pages including access to their LFRMS: http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/com munity/flooding/flooding.aspx  Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse City of York Council LFRMS:  Wharfe and Lower Ouse CYC Flood Risk Management  Derwent Humber Strategy

There are 15 catchments in the Humber RBD, as shown in Figure 17; these are referred to as management catchments.

Figure 17: Management catchments in the Humber RBD

3.1. The Aire and Calder management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Aire and Calder management catchment is large (2,064 km2) and varied. The middle and lower reaches are dominated by the industrial towns of West Yorkshire. In contrast, much of the upper reaches are a landscape of high, sparsely populated uplands with strings of villages and small towns nestling in the narrow valley floors. The largest rivers are the Aire and Calder, with the Calder joining the River Aire near Castleford. Between Chapel Haddlesey and where the Aire joins the Ouse, the River Aire is tidal. There is a rich variety of environmental and heritage sites within the catchment. The River Calder flows for approximately 70km from its source Heald Moor (near Todmorden) to its confluence with the River Aire near Castleford. The River Aire flows for 148km from its source in the Yorkshire Dales (near Malham) to its confluence with the River Ouse near Goole. There are two large cities within the catchment, Leeds and Bradford, which both have populations of over 450,000. The other principal cities and towns within the catchment, all with populations of over 40,000, are Castleford, Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield and Wakefield. In total, approximately 2 million people live within the catchment. There are a number of important transport networks; these include motorways (M1, M621, M606, M62, A1(M), A58(M) and A64(M), A and B roads, railway lines, the canal system and Leeds-Bradford International airport. Agricultural land use accounts for a large proportion of the catchment. The agricultural land is predominately split between grades 2 to 5 (further information on grading is given in the ‘Land use and land management’ section). Topography The topography of the Aire and Calder catchment varies significantly, with land at Knottingley situated less than 10m above sea level to the high Pennine moors in the west, peaking at Black Hill near Holme at 582m. The Upper Calder and Holme are characterised by high gradients, steep valleys and narrow floodplains. Downstream of Dewsbury, the River Calder is less confined by steep valleys and development. Here it meanders across a more defined fluvial plain where wetlands and flood storage is available. The River Aire channel becomes steeper to the north of Leeds. Downstream of Leeds the topography is notably flatter; between Gargrave and Keighley, the Aire’s glaciated valley opens out to over 1km wide forming an extensive area of floodplain.

Figure 18: Overview map of the Aire and Calder management catchment

Geology and soils The geology around the Aire and Calder is varied. From the source of the Aire to its confluence with the River Ouse, the geology changes from limestone, millstone grit, coal measures, limestone to sandstone. In the Calder sub-catchment, millstone grit lies to the west and coal measures to the east. The headwaters of the upper reaches are dominated by carboniferous limestone resulting in rapid runoff as the solid geology restricts the flow of water. These upland areas contain peaty and groundwater gley soils. These generally have poor permeability and can become seasonally waterlogged. The middle reaches are dominated by millstone grits. These grits form the prominent high moorland areas to the west of Huddersfield and Halifax and the area between Skipton to Bradford. In this mid-section of the catchment, sandier, better-drained soils are found (calcareous brown earths). Magnesium limestone is the dominant geology around Castleford, where the River Calder joins the River Aire. In tributary catchments upstream of Bradford, the soils are seasonally wet deep loams and peats. Their permeability is low, which means that a high percentage of rainfall is converted to storm runoff, flowing rapidly into watercourses rather than draining into the ground. Geologically younger coal measures are located in the east of the Calder sub- catchment and from Bradford to Castleford. These coal measures are made up of shales, grits and coal seams. The majority of the lower reaches are dominated by sandstone. These areas are porous enough to allow large quantities of water to be stored, making them valuable aquifers. Overlaying this solid geology are areas of peat and glacial debris, whilst the most widespread sediments in the river valleys are tills, clay and composite in addition to sands and gravels held in alluvium and river terrace deposits. Land use and land management The mid to lower reaches of the Aire and Calder are the most developed, with the upper catchment mostly rural in nature. Major urban centres are Halifax, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Wakefield, Leeds and Bradford. East of Leeds, the area is a mosaic of urban, industrial and agricultural land use, together with utility and mineral extraction sites. The upper reaches of the management area have lower quality agricultural land. Grade 4: poor quality agricultural land represents the highest proportion of graded land in the management area. In the lower half of the catchment, the majority of the land is classified as better quality, arable land. The lower reaches of the River Aire, downstream of Leeds, include the best agricultural land. A small proportion of this, 0.4%, is categorised as grade 1 land whilst the remaining agricultural land is split between both grade 2 and 3. Dairy cattle and sheep farming predominate on the wetter soils of the Upper Aire. On the drier and freely draining areas in the Lower Aire, arable farming (including root crops) predominates, with a smaller amount of grassland and market gardening. Hydrology Upland areas in the south of the management catchment typically experience average annual rainfall of over 1,999 mm whereas towards the confluence of the River Calder and River Aire, average annual rainfall is between 600 and 800mm. Steep valley sides in the upper reaches mean that rainfall runs very rapidly off the land into the river system. This can result in a very quick rise in river water levels and flood peaks with short lead times being generated.

Groundwater movement contributes very little to catchment response. Although springs in millstone grit areas of the upper catchment provide baseflow for the river, there is very little connectivity between ground and surface waters throughout the rest of the catchment. The reservoirs in the Pennine uplands at the head of the valley play a vital role in maintaining a healthy river flow. The Leeds & Liverpool Canal flows through the upper catchment and in many places, is in close proximity to the River Aire. There is a close relationship between the River Aire and the canal. There are also several controlled washlands including Skipton and Cononley in the upper catchment and those along the lower Aire and Calder. They fill by water overtopping a defined spillway when the river reaches a certain level. Cononley washland, for example, is divided into four compartments. Once these are full, water can spill back into the river over an emergency spillway. After a flood has passed, the washlands drain by sluices. It is important to empty the washlands as soon as possible so that their capacity is available for any subsequent flood. The natural environment There is a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance in the area. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. There are currently 3 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) (North Pennine Moors, South Pennine Moors Phase 2, Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1)). The habitats associated with these designated areas are grassland, heath, bog, and water-fringed vegetation. There are also 6 SACs (Denby Grange Colliery Ponds, South Pennine Moors, North Pennine Moors, South Pennine Moors, Craven Limestone Complex and North Pennine Dales Meadows) within the management area. The habitats associated include upland heath, acid grassland and mountain hay meadows in the upland areas together with woodlands, inland water bodies and blanket bogs in the rest of the management area. There are 33 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). These SSSIs include a wide variety of different habitats but upland moorland habitat and upland limestone forms the most significant area of designated habitat in the catchment. Animals regarded as important associated with the upland moorland habitat include upland birds such as merlin, golden plover and curlew. One National Park falls within the boundary of the management area; this is the Peak District National Park. There is also one Ramsar site (wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention), Malham Tarn. The Tarn is of international importance, with areas of open water, fen, and raised bog. The site is also the highest marl lake in Britain and is home to 7 nationally scarce species and 5 listed British Red Data Book invertebrates. There are 2 National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Malham Tarn and New House Farm, Malham. The historic environment There is one World Heritage Site in the management area; the village of Saltaire, near Shipley. This is because it forms “an example of a complete and well-preserved industrial village of the second half of the nineteenth century” (UNESCO, 2001).

There are 295 Scheduled Monuments (SAMs), of which at least 40 are located within 100m of a watercourse. These SAMs range from burial sites, bridges, roman roads and aqueducts and include Kirkstall Abbey, Fairburn Ings Moat, the Henge at Ferrybridge and Rothwell Castle. There is one registered historic battlefield, Adwalton Moor, dated 1643, and 31 Registered Parks and Gardens. There are a large number of conservation areas and a large number of Listed Buildings within the management area. For example, within Calderdale alone there are 4,000 which consist of Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II buildings. As per local environmental designations, we as Risk Management Authorities recognise their importance. They will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding The catchment area has a long history of flooding. One of the earliest recorded floods is in 1799 along the River Colne at Slaithwaite and Marsden, with numerous historical accounts of flooding occurring within the catchment since. Particularly notable floods are those of 1946 (River Aire around Crossflatts, Stockbridge, River Worth at Keighley and Calder at Elland and Todmorden), 1968 (River Spen at Cleckheaton), 1970 (Fenay Beck) and 1974 (Calder Valley). Major flood events affecting many communities significantly within the catchment are 2000 (River Calder and its tributaries, Upper Aire and Middle Aire), events throughout 2006 - 2008 (River Calder mainly), 2007 (large area of the catchment) and most recently 2012 and 2013 (again, widespread but upper reaches suffered greatly). Many of these recent flood events have occurred as a result of torrential downpours hitting steep-sided valleys resulting in flash flooding such as the events of 2012 and 2013. Significant widespread flooding occurred in December 2015, when heavy rainfall fell on already saturated ground across Yorkshire. Multiple locations suffered impacts throughout the Aire and Calder catchment, including the Upper Calder Valley, Bradford, Kirklees, Leeds, Wakefield and some areas along the lower Aire reaches. One of many significant events for the catchment occurred in June 2000 as a result of two inches of rain falling in eight hours; this is the equivalent of about one month’s rainfall. This rain fell onto an already saturated catchment, as the previous two and a half weeks had seen above average rainfall for the time of year. Flooding occurred in a number of locations in the Calder catchment and was caused principally by local drainage problems and flow in tributaries of the River Calder. In total 340 properties were reported to have flooded within the management area. As well as residential and commercial properties being flooded, roads were significantly affected in the upper and middle Aire Valley, Craven, Bradford and Leeds. The East Coast mainline was severely disrupted and damaged, with the main line to Keighley and Skipton being flooded for several days. A ‘near miss’ occurred at Leeds Station, where water levels came close to knocking out power and signalling systems. Between the 14th and 25th June 2007, a large amount of rain fell across West Yorkshire causing widespread flooding. Rainfall totals for the June 2007 event in the Aire catchment were over three times the monthly average at the time. During the first peak, West Yorkshire received between 80 and 100mm of rain. On the second, between 67mm and 80mm of rain fell across West Yorkshire on already saturated land. This led to rapid runoff into rivers which were already flowing at high levels. In the first event, the main rivers did not overtop, however, many becks and streams did, such as Ings Beck in Wakefield. In the second flood, rain fell on the already saturated catchment which caused both surface and main river flooding and widespread damage across the management catchment. In Leeds for example, a

total around 250 residential properties were flooded, along with 50 commercial properties. The rapid nature of recent flooding in the catchment demonstrates the risks to people that may arise during such events. As a result, 53 rapid response catchments have been identified within the Aire and Calder area. The tidal surge that hit the east coast of England on 5th December 2013 was the most serious for 60 years. The surge was a result of a combination of high winds, low pressure and high tides pushing a ‘bulge’ of water into both the Irish and North seas. The North Sea reached more than 2m above predicted tide levels, putting a serious strain on sea defences all along the east coast. People living along the length of the coast felt the full impact of the extreme weather conditions along the Lower Aire and Ouse. In December 2015, many catchments across Yorkshire, including the Aire and Calder, saw prolonged rainfall from successive storms Desmond, Eva (24 December) and Frank (29 – 30 December). Flooding experienced by communities in December was exacerbated by saturated ground conditions following very wet weather in November across Yorkshire, leading to high river levels and widespread river flooding. Early data analysis by the Environment Agency of river level gauges across the catchment indicate that many recorded their highest ever flows during this event. Initial rainfall data indicates that for many sites within the catchment, the total rainfall in December is in excess of 200% of the expected average December rainfall. Many communities along the Aire and Calder suffered widespread flooding from rivers and surface water flooding. The Upper Calder Valley, Bradford, Kirklees, Leeds, Wakefield and lower Aire were all affected, impacting residential and commercial properties, community buildings, infrastructure such as roads, substations and operational assets such as defences. Many bridges were damaged or washed away due to the high velocity of flood flows in the rivers. Severe flood warnings were issued by the Environment Agency for areas along both the Aire and Calder which contributed to reducing the risk to life from the flooding. The impact of this flood event, throughout the Aire and Calder management catchment, is currently being reviewed by the Environment Agency and others as part of asset recovery work. These reviews will further define and review the hydrological conditions, emergency response and long term needs for managing river flooding throughout the management catchment. The published recommendations from these reviews will be taken into account by all responsible parties in the long term management of the catchment. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea A large area of land within the Aire and Calder management catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, as seen in Figure 19. Key communities at risk include Bradford, Leeds, Huddersfield and Wakefield. Table 13: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Aire and Calder management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 2,086,700 10,650 35,550 33,250 <50 No of services: 2,980 110 130 90 0 Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 155,900 3,050 7,600 5,300 <50 No of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 790 10 30 40 0 Railway (km): 380 10 30 20 0 Agricultural land (ha): 52,150 3,700 5,200 2,100 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 0 0 0 0 waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 115 16 12 12 0 50m: SAC (ha): 22,350 150 <50 <50 0 SPA (ha): 19,750 50 <50 <50 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 300 50 <50 <50 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 1,100 <50 <50 <50 0 SSSI (ha): 22,800 350 50 <50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,400 <50 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 250 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 10,050 310 330 270 0 No of Licensed water 550 100 70 20 0 abstractions:

Within the Aire and Calder management catchment, approximately eighty thousand people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, representing approximately 4% of the total population. Nearly 16,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, covering mainly high, medium and low risk, with less than 1% of that total representing very low risk. Around 20% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk (approximately 11,000ha), with most being at high and medium risk. The varied landscape within the Aire and Calder catchment gives rise to differing fluvial response to rainfall. The upper reaches of the Calder for example can experience rapidly responding rivers where the onset of localised flooding can be very quick and have significant impacts. The lower reaches of the Aire are slower to respond, but levels can remain high for days and even weeks. Below Chapel Haddlesey, the Aire is tidal. The Lower Aire and Humber are at risk of tidal events, with a few communities recently being affected by the December 2013 tidal surge. The Calder Valley has a long history of flooding. The floods during the summer of 2012 had a significant impact on the communities of the Upper Calder Valley. The area experienced three floods within four weeks. Further flooding occurred in Todmorden in 2013 affecting properties only just recovering from the 2012 floods, and then again in December 2015.

Figure 19: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Aire and Calder management catchment

Flooding from local sources Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. The management catchment principally covers Bradford, Calderdale, East Riding, Leeds, Kirklees, North Yorkshire and Wakefield LLFAs. In preparing the Humber FRMP North Yorkshire County Council and Kirklees Council have included their local information regarding these sources of flooding – as further defined in their published Local FRM Strategies. Information about local/other sources of risk may also be available in SWMPs and SFRA produced by the LLFA or Local Planning Authorities. Kirklees Council’s LFRMS outlines a number of actions that inform how the council commits its resources. Their council covers an area with approximately 100km of main rivers Colne and Calder which drain to the Aire and the Dearne, which flows to the Don, along with substantial lengths of culverted and open minor watercourses, presenting numerous flood risk locations. A summary of the main actions of the LFRMS are as follows:  Improve the council’s understanding of flood risk  Ensure that local communities are aware of flood risk  Manage development-related flood risk  Improve and maintain drainage systems  Balance the economic, social and environmental benefits of flood risk management  Identify work projects and programmes that are evidenced and affordable Specific examples include developing a rolling programme of prioritised flood risk projects including maintenance, carrying out flood investigations and engaging with stakeholders and local communities on flood risk plans. Kirklees have completed several schemes and projects recently including a trash grille replacement programme protecting 35 culverted watercourses from blockage and a Flood Risk Prioritisation Tool, which considers all the available information on flood risk to prioritise locations where flood risk (from all sources) is highest to inform a programme of schemes and initiatives to address flood risk. Following the recent flooding during December 2015, Kirklees Council are continuing with development of their feasibility studies to determine where future schemes may be required (such as Mirfield) and reviewing prioritisation of maintenance and capital works for assets affected by the floods (such as further work to trash grilles).

Figure 20: Flooding from surface water: Aire and Calder management catchment

Flooding from reservoirs There are 121 reservoirs in the catchment, used for water supply, storage and recreational purposes. Our recently published Flood Risk Maps for reservoirs show that just over 110,000 people are at risk from flooding resulting from a failure of a reservoir in the catchment, approximately 5% of the population within the management catchment. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 14: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Aire and Calder management catchment

Total in Maximum extent management of flooding catchment Risk to people: No of people: 2,086,700 110,450 No of services: 2,980 400

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 155,900 18,950 No of airports: 1 0 Roads (km): 790 80 Railway (km): 380 50 Agricultural land (ha): 52,150 10,550

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 0 No of EPR installations within 50m: 115 39 SAC (ha): 22,350 450 SPA (ha): 19,750 400 RAMSAR site (ha): 300 <50 World Heritage Site (ha): 1,100 100 SSSI (ha): 22,800 650 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,400 <50 SAMs (ha): 250 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 10,050 1,200 No of Licensed water abstractions: 550 200

Figure 21: Flooding from reservoirs: Aire and Calder management catchment

Partnership working Within the Aire and Calder management catchment the following RMAs work closely together to identify, plan and deliver flood risk and coastal erosion projects and particularly local flood risks in our day-to-day work and formally through the West Yorkshire Flood Risk Partnership (and others) and the RFCCs:  Bradford Metropolitan District Council  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council  East Riding of Yorkshire Council  Environment Agency  Leeds City Council  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council  North Yorkshire County Council  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council In addition the Environment Agency also works closely with other authorities and organisations such as Yorkshire Water, Natural England and IDBs within the management catchment. The following IDBs operate within the area: Airdale, Earby and Salterforth, Selby Area, Knottingley to Gowdall, Rawcliffe, Goole and Airmyn, Went, Lower Ouse, Cowick, Thorntree, Dempster and Snaith. The Environment Agency is working with RMAs and other organisations on a range of flood risk management measures such as development of schemes, community engagement and awareness, establishing flood warden networks and voluntary groups. Following the recent December 2015 flooding, RMAs are working in partnership with the Environment Agency across multiple functions to develop catchment-wide recovery programmes. These will inform reviews of asset plans, investment programmes for capital schemes and maintenance programmes, operational incident flood warning service, incident response and community engagement. Some examples of this work are described below: Development of flood risk management schemes Examples of the Environment Agency working in partnership with LLFAs and other partners to develop and construct flood risk management schemes are described in the case studies below. In June 2007, a large residential area of Agbrigg, Wakefield was flooded from Oakenshaw Beck and the River Calder. Approximately 400 properties and the A638 Doncaster Road were severely affected, with flooding in the houses reaching flood depths of approximately 1.2m above ground floor levels. Following the floods, the Environment Agency and Wakefield Council worked together to provide a FAS as a partnership project, with funding of £1m secured alongside the Council’s contribution of £330K, a supply of land and contribution to future maintenance of the scheme. The scheme included flood storage, flood embankments and walls, flow control structures and pumping stations. The local community were given the opportunity to influence the scheme by choosing the location of embankment. The scheme incorporated multiple improvements such as accommodating surface water flows and habitat and was completed in 2011. Following several recent flood events, flood recovery work has highlighted the need to repair existing assets and develop and implement schemes to manage flood risk within the catchment. Several examples include the Upper Calder Valley and along the Humber and Lower Aire. Following the tidal surge in December 2013, existing

defences have been repaired and raised. Locations include Newland and Little Airmyn where defences have been repaired and sealed and Old Goole where a low spot on defences has been raised with formal concrete defences. Further repair works have also been carried out to the surrounding sheet pile defences to ensure their integrity in future flood events. Community engagement and working with voluntary groups The Environment Agency works closely with Local Authorities, flood wardens and local flood action groups in developing flood awareness in local communities. A recent example is the periodic testing of flood warning sirens in the Upper Calder Valley. Flood Warning Duty Officers from the Environment Agency, flood wardens and flood action groups helped to engage with the local communities about the risks of flash flooding, captured how audible the sirens were in certain locations and promoted the work that is taking place in the area. Following the siren testing, the Environment Agency and Calderdale Council ran a flood plan exercise with flood action groups to test community flood plans which include procedures for opening and using equipment in their community flood stores. Following flood events, the Environment Agency will go out to visit local communities as part of flood recovery work. After the summer floods in 2014 on Wash Dike in Pontefract, the Environment Agency met with affected residents to assess the impacts of the flooding, promote the use of flood plans and support residents in setting up a flood warden group. A new flood alert and warning service has now been set up which will help to give registered residents an early warning of potential flooding. Working with flood wardens and the River Stewardship Company, the Environment Agency has set up a pilot river stewardship programme in a number of locations across the catchment. In Garforth, we recently commissioned the River Stewardship Company to organise a volunteer day, working alongside the local community, flood wardens and a flood group to increase awareness of flood risk, improving the biodiversity and reducing the flood risk of their local area by clearing invasive plants and low level vegetation along local watercourses. Economic sustainability The scale of development and the future pressure for development is important in the long term planning for flood risk and coastal erosion risk management. Firstly, impermeable surfaces can lead to runoff bypassing soil; increased volume of storm run-off and reduced travel times; increased flood peaks; reduced groundwater recharge and reduced low flows. Secondly, inappropriately located development can lead to an increase in flood risk to those properties placed within known FRAs and also to sites downstream due to increased runoff. It is vitally important to recognise the Find out more: need for development and regeneration to allow sustainable economic growth to take place; this Information regarding LEPs is supported by national and local planning covering this region can be found policy. here: Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership Local  Leeds City Region LEP: Enterprise Partnership (LEP) will use £340m http:www.the-lep.com/ from the European Union (EU) Structural and Investment Fund to encourage economic output to grow by £5.2bn by 2021. Flood defence works will assist in achieving this aim by enabling existing businesses to grow and prosper, help its businesses to remain competitive and provide good quality local jobs. An example of this from the River Aire catchment is the Skipton FAS, which will act as a catalyst for the wider development of the South Skipton area. The project will unlock major growth opportunities in Skipton and strengthen economic

links with neighbouring cities. The delivery of the Skipton FAS is a strategic priority for Craven District Council. This vision is summarised through the Strategic Economic Plan 2014 as “unlock the Leeds City Region’s potential, become the growth engine for the north, and rebalance the nation.” Conclusions and objectives for the Aire and Calder catchment The Aire and Calder catchment is characterised by distinctive sub-catchments. The middle and lower reaches are dominated by the industrial towns of West Yorkshire. In contrast, much of the upper catchment reaches are a landscape of high, sparsely populated uplands with strings of villages and small towns nestling in the narrow valley floors. The largest rivers are the Aire and Calder, with the Calder joining the river Aire near Castleford. Between Chapel Haddlesey and where the Aire joins the Ouse, the River Aire is tidal. The key FRAs are the conurbations surrounding Leeds, Skipton and the communities in the Upper Calder Valley. Leeds and Skipton are both at risk of flooding from the River Aire and its tributaries. The communities in the Upper Calder Valley are at risk of flooding from the River Calder and its tributaries. Approximately 80,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea (around 4% of the population). The upper catchment respond quickly to periods of heavy rainfall, as the watercourses here lay within steep valleys. As such, 53 rapid response catchments have been identified. In the lower catchment, water levels can remain high for several days, as demonstrated by the floods of 2007. The management catchment is large, covering an area of approximately 2,000km2 with a population of approximately 2 million. Around 20% of its agricultural land is at risk (approximately 11,000ha). There is a rich variety of environmental and heritage sites, of which there are a number of areas with environmental designations including 6 SACs, 3 SPAs, 33 SSSIs, 2 NNRs and 1 National Park, the Peak District National Park. This catchment has suffered from major flooding recently in 2000, 2006 – 2008 and most recently 2012, 2013, 2014 and December 2015. The events in 2007 and 2012 - 2013 in particular show the split nature of flooding in the catchment; 2007 was a relatively long-lasting and widespread event and 2012 and 2013 affected many rapidly-responding sub-catchments in areas such as Todmorden and Hebden Bridge. The tidal surge in 2013 showed that the area is vulnerable to tidal flooding in its lower reaches. There are 121 reservoirs in the catchment. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that just over 110,000 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Aire and Calder management catchment, representing just 5% of the total population. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 15 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Aire and Calder management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 15: Relevant objectives: Aire & Calder management catchment

Reference Objective Relevant? SOC 1 Understanding Flood Risk and Working in Partnership  SOC 2 Community Preparedness and Resilience 

SOC 3 Reduce Community Disruption  SOC 4 Flood Risk and Development  SOC 5 Reduce risk to people  ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  Measures across the Aire and Calder catchment 130 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Aire and Calder management catchment. This includes a number of measures that have been taken from existing plans and strategies that have been provided on a voluntary basis by our partners including:  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council LFRMS x 32  North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS x 17 A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. There are 49 measures which have been identified within the Aire and Calder management catchment associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding, through structural and non-structural action. This includes North Yorkshire County Council and Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council measures, 8 of these have come directly from local FRM strategies. The Protection measures can be summarised as:  The ongoing development and delivery of a prioritised programme of projects  Opportunities to incorporate flood risk measures as part of proposed environmental improvement projects. The environmental improvement projects proposed include working in partnership on creating habitats and improving SSSIs  The maintenance and inspection of existing assets such as culverts, river banks and river defences  Ensuring the environmental consequences of implementing Local FRM Strategies is assessed within catchment-wide flood risk planning There are a few high profile protection measures which have been identified for delivery within the first cycle of the FRMP (2015-21). Examples in the Calder catchment include schemes within the Calder Valley such as the Upper Calder Valley Flood Risk Reduction Scheme Phase 1 and 2, which will form part of a wider catchment plan for delivering flood risk management improvements and repair of assets.

Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use Prevention measures identified within the Aire and Calder management catchment are associated principally with the prevention of damage caused by floods and improving knowledge of the watercourse network, drainage infrastructure and flood risk and development across the catchment. 47 measures have been identified which are associated with the further assessment of flood risk through the development of strategies, monitoring programmes and flood risk modelling. Examples of these measures include:  Programme of modelling projects to improve flood risk knowledge of areas with existing modelled data, create new models for areas with little known current modelled information , improve the Environment Agency’s flood forecasting and warning service and inform future scheme development as appropriate  Providing input to Local Development Plans and planning consultations  Working with RMAs and other organisations to ensure that local policies and flood risk programmes contribute to and complement other catchment initiatives  Recording of Drainage and Flood Assets and carrying out flood investigations  Implementing a responsive, reactive maintenance regime based on flood risk. Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood Within the management catchment, 29 measures have been identified covering a range of actions to deliver preparedness, improve the flood forecasting and warning service and working with local communities and flood wardens to increase public awareness so they know what to do in the event of flooding. Developing plans with all RMAs and communities for incident response and recovery forms an important part of preparedness measures within this catchment. Example measures include the following:  Carrying out engagement campaigns within Rapid Response Catchments to raise the awareness of the dangers of flash flooding and where possible encourage the development of personal flood plans  Ensuring communities understand the benefits of registering to the Environment Agency’s Flood Warning Service and encouraging uptake of registrations  Providing support & updates to the LRF Response Plans  Develop a pilot monitoring & warning system for groundwater flood risk with a view to deployment at appropriate key locations across the county  Working with partners to manage the flood risk to critical infrastructure across the catchment. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible & mitigating both the social & economic impacts on the affected population As part of their LFRMS documents, 4 measures associated with recovery and review have been identified by North Yorkshire County Council and Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council. These measures are associated with their statutory duty, under Section 19 of the FWMA, to assess and investigate flooding incidents with their authority areas. The measures relate to working with and supporting communities affected by flooding and improving knowledge of the watercourse network and drainage infrastructure based on past flood events across the catchment, ensuring that there are clear protocols and processes for the

assessment & investigation of flooding incidents. The Environment Agency will continue to work with all RMAs on recovery and review of flooding incidents and incorporate information into our plans for managing flood risk.

Figure 22: LFRMS objectives relevant to the Aire and Calder management catchment

It should be noted that in response to the winter 2015/16 flooding across the Aire and Calder catchment, a review is being carried out by all responsible RMAs. The recommendations of these reviews will be taken forward where appropriate.

3.2. The Derwent Derbyshire management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Derwent Derbyshire management catchment, with the exception of a small area of South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, lies entirely within the county of Derbyshire. The River Derwent has a catchment area of 1,197km2. It starts in the Dark Peak region of the Peak District at Howden Moor, an area of upland that lies between the Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire conurbations. The river is a major tributary of the River Trent and it flows southward to join the Trent between the cities of Derby and Nottingham. Major tributaries of the Derwent include:  Rivers Wye (catchment area 272km2)  Amber (catchment area 140km2)  Ecclesbourne (catchment area 60km2) The River Derwent flows through the former industrial towns of Matlock, Belper and Duffield, before passing through the largest urban area in the catchment, Derby, approximately 10km from its confluence with the Trent. Other significant urban areas that lie on the tributary rivers include Buxton and Bakewell on the Wye, Wirksworth on the Ecclesbourne and Alfreton in the Amber catchment. The management catchment runs parallel to the Dove catchment, where they both feed into the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment to the south and east. The Don and Rother management catchment lies to the north and east, and waters from these catchments meet again at the Humber itself. To the north and west of the catchment lies the Mersey management catchment which forms a watershed between the Humber and the North West RBD. Topography The River Derwent rises in an upland moorland area with elevations of more than 630mAOD. In the upper parts of the catchment, in particular, these high elevations drop at a steep gradient forming several smaller catchments that have been defined as rapid response catchments. These types of catchments react to intense rainfall that can result in a quick onset of a flood incident. At the confluence with the River Trent, land levels are typically around 30mAOD, creating a large expanse of lower level floodplain.

Figure 23: Overview map of the Derwent Derbyshire management catchment

Geology and soils The higher ground of the Peak District is characterised by the harder millstone grit and of the Dark and Carboniferous Limestone White Peaks respectively. The Dark Peak tends to favour peaty soils, whilst loamy, good draining soils cover the White Peak and sandstone geology in the middle Derwent. The covering of soils can be quite thin at higher elevations in the White Peak, leaving areas of exposed limestone. The geology of the area has a strong influence on the catchment response to rainfall. Whilst the limestone and sandstone in the upland areas are more permeable than the Dark Peak, the steep slopes can still dominate and promote rapid surface run-off. In terms of geology, it is recent glaciation that has shaped the current landscape and has played an important role in determining the surface geology and current drainage pattern. Glacial deposits of sands and gravels cover much of the river valleys, influencing flood mechanisms and the distribution of surface water flooding. The main channel of the River Derwent drains predominantly from the Dark Peak and is joined in its upper reaches by the River Wye, a large tributary which drains the more permeable Carboniferous limestone White Peak to the west of the Peak District. The Wye catchment responds with a much lower rate of runoff compared to the Derwent, where it is calculated that less than 20% of rainfall results in runoff. The result is that that this tributary of the Derwent responds much more slowly to rainfall. Downstream of the River Wye confluence, the River Derwent leaves the Peak District National Park and changes in character. The middle reach of the Derwent crosses from the impermeable millstone grit of the Dark Peak onto the more permeable Carboniferous limestone of the White Peak. Runoff is reduced accordingly, but steep slopes and high flows from upstream, mean that flooding is a problem. Just upstream of Belper the Derwent is joined by the River Amber and at Duffield by the River Ecclesbourne. Both tributaries drain the moderately permeable Carboniferous limestone and as a result respond relatively slowly to rainfall. The river then flows through the highly urbanised area of Derby and eastward across the low- lying agricultural grassland of the Trent floodplain. The Sherwood sandstone and Triassic mudstone in this reach results in a moderate run-off response to rainfall Land use and land management Throughout the management catchment the agricultural sector is important in terms of both the local economy and the environment. The north is predominantly livestock agriculture, with sheep farming dominating the upland areas including the moors, and cattle grazing on the lower slopes. Farming in the upland White Peak District area of the Trent tends to be improved grassland and is mainly used for livestock farming. In contrast, the surrounding Dark Peak soils are acidic and are generally covered by scrub land and raised bogs with some rough grazing. Forestry and woodland areas are also evident in the centre of the catchment between Ambergate and Bakewell. In the south, towards Derby there is a transition to arable agriculture, with commercial growing including turf production and market gardening. The catchment is important for water resources with four reservoirs: Howden, Derwent and Ladybower Reservoirs in the headwaters of the River Derwent and Ogston Reservoir on the River Amber. Carsington Reservoir in the adjacent River Dove catchment is used to store water, pumped from the Derwent when the levels in the river are high. The Dales of the River Wye and the middle reaches of the Derwent through Matlock are characterised by wooded gorges, which provides a distinctive landscape of central Derbyshire. Downstream of Ambergate, the Derwent, together with the

lowland tributaries the River Ecclesbourne and Markeaton Brook, flow through wide floodplains, which broaden as the river nears the confluence with the River Trent. Land management and use has a large influence on flood risk and the wider environment. Overgrazing, summer wildfires, the weather and historic pollution have all contributed to a 150 years of damage that have left large areas of the Peak District Moorland uplands bare of vegetation. Partnership projects such as ‘Moors for the Future ‘have been established across a wide range of authorities and organisations in an attempt to reverse this damage. These projects have the potential to deliver flood risk benefits by holding back peak flows in the upper catchment in addition to WFD and environmental benefits. Hydrology Rainfall in the headwaters of the Derwent can exceed 1,450mm per annum and the combination of steep slopes, high rainfall, and impermeable millstone grit geology results in the upper catchment having extremely high rates of runoff (more than 50% of rainfall does not permeate the ground) and results in a flashy response to rainfall. The steep upper catchment results in rapid runoff with a short time to reach a peak in flood level, although the upper reaches of the Derwent pass through three water supply reservoirs which attenuate a small percentage of the flows. The catchment is long and narrow, and as a result, the lower reaches of the Derwent have a much slower response to rainfall. The lower end of the Derwent, downstream of Derby has large areas of washlands. The river then has a complex interaction with high flows in the River Trent which can influence water levels in locations such as Shardlow and Draycott. The natural environment The management catchment has a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. The South Pennine Moors SPA, (also designated as a SAC), includes the major moorland of the South Pennines and covers extensive tracts of semi-natural moorland habitats, including upland heath and blanket mire. The Peak District National Park covers 1,438km2, with 900km2 falling within the Derwent and Dove catchments. In the centre of the National Park is the White Peak, with deep dales and undulating fields that are characteristic of limestone country. Around the north, east and west is the Dark Peak, an area of peat moorland. Within the Derbyshire Derwent there are just under 20,000ha of land designated as SSSI, however under 300ha of SSSI is deemed to be at risk of flooding. The historic environment Derwent Valley Mills in Derbyshire is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In December 2001, the Derwent Valley Mills was inscribed on the World Heritage List. This international designation confirms the outstanding importance of the area as the birthplace of the factory system where in the 18th Century water power was successfully harnessed for textile production. The importance of these sites, in international terms, requires us to provide careful consideration with any of our proposed water based work.

There are a further 933 SAMs, over 3,000 Listed Buildings and numerous conservation areas which indicate the depth of heritage in the Derbyshire Derwent. As per local environmental designations, we as risk management authorities recognise their importance however they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding The River Derwent has historically suffered from frequent and extensive flooding with records dating back to the 16th Century. The Derwent through Derby has extensive defences built in the 1930s and upgraded in the 1960s and 70s following severe flooding in 1965. The current standard of protection through Derby varies. In Derby, rising waters during a severe flood event would spill over existing defences along the River Derwent and cause significant flooding. Residential communities, businesses, local energy and transport infrastructure (such as major routes in and out of the City Centre), and the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site would all be affected. The most recent significant flooding in Derby occurred in November 2000. A prolonged period of rainfall culminated in an intense storm which resulted in fluvial flooding of the Derwent, Markeaton and Bramble Brooks, together with surface water flooding of various parts of the city centre. The Northern Flood Relief Culvert and Bramble Brook Culvert diverted the worst of the flooding from the north of the city but the Eastgate underpass was severely flooded and closed for several days. The uncertainty associated with flood risk in Derby means that developers are less likely to invest in property or land. Derby City’s ‘Our City Our River’ has been developed in partnership with the Environment Agency to reduce flood risk in the City through long-term and sustainable economic development, creating a high quality riverside, linking the city and its people with the river. In 2012 people were asked to comment on proposals which were presented in the Our City Our River master plan. The feedback received was used to produce a schedule of changes to the master plan. The master plan was then adopted by Derby City Council in July 2012. The master plan represents our commitment to reduce flood risk in Derby, protect the City’s heritage and promote sustainable economic development, to help create attractive and vibrant areas along the river where people want to live, work and visit. The partnership applied for funding and has been successful in receiving indicative funding of £35 million over the next five years. Indicative funding is not guaranteed and is subject to the approval of a scheme business case by the government. A business case has been developed that describes the proposed defences and their value for money. For example, how they would make sure that land and properties are protected and, at the same time, encourage economic growth. The River Derwent, particularly within the upper catchment above Derby and its main tributaries, the Ashop, Noe, Wye, Ecclesbourne, Amber, Bottle Brook and Markeaton Brook are largely undefended. There are local defences around settlements at risk from flooding, and the urban stretches of river through Derby have extensive defences. Flood defence schemes have been implemented at Draycott, Shardlow, Great Wilne, Ambaston, Derby, Little Eaton, Matlock, Darley Bridge and Duffield. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment.

Flooding from rivers and the sea A large area of land within the Derwent Derbyshire management catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, as seen in Figure 24. There are estimated to be just over 25,000 people at risk of river flooding within the catchment, most of these people live within the more heavily built-up areas of the Lower Derwent and are protected from flooding by some form of defence. There are however, large numbers of properties affected by the 1 in 100 year event (1% chance) throughout the catchment upstream of Derby, many of which are isolated properties or in small communities. A further 6,000 non-residential properties are also at risk of flooding from rivers. Table 16: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Derwent Derbyshire management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 416,500 4,600 9,750 11,000 0 No of services: 930 50 50 50 0 Risk to economic activity No of non-residential 51,650 1,150 2,400 2,600 <50 properties: No of airports: 0 0 0 0

Roads (km): 270 10 20 30 0 Railway (km): 110 <10 <10 10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 23,250 950 250 300 0 Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 28 3 2 0 0 50m: SAC (ha): 17,150 50 100 <50 0 SPA (ha): 16,000 <50 <50 <50 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 5,600 600 200 250 0 SSSI (ha): 19,700 100 100 50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,750 150 50 50 0 SAMs (ha): 950 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 3,130 190 150 230 0 No of Licensed water 200 40 20 <10 0 abstractions:

Figure 24: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Derwent Derbyshire management catchment

Flooding from local sources Historic flood events in the catchment have tended to be from river flooding; however more recently flooding has resulted predominantly from surface water flooding. Our Flood maps for Surface Water Flooding show many areas at risk across the catchment. Other sources of flooding in the catchment are primarily surface water and sewer flooding. In an urban environment such as Derby, pluvial or rainfall-based flooding is inevitable. Any large paved area will result in an increased rate of runoff, times of concentration will be significantly reduced and water will tend to flow quickly, often bypassing poorly located gullies or drainage channels. The route that this surface water takes, and how it is intercepted, will determine whether or not this flow affects vulnerable areas, and to what extent. This situation may worsen if the sewers become inundated by sudden flows and flood above ground level. The risks, objectives and measures associated with local sources of flooding within the Derwent Derbyshire management catchment can be seen in Derbyshire County Councils LFRMS which can be viewed here.

Figure 25: Flooding from surface water: Derwent Derbyshire management catchment

Flooding from reservoirs The Derbyshire Derwent is an important source of water, with the Upper Derwent and Ogston reservoirs together with the River Derwent providing a high, strategically important, long-standing public water supply for the East Midlands and South Yorkshire. The River Derwent itself is heavily regulated and is subject to compensation flow requirements as a consequence of the reservoirs. This artificially elevates low flows in the river, whilst providing some flood alleviation during high rainfall events. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 21,000 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Derwent Derbyshire management catchment, representing just 5% of the total population. Approximately 5,000 non-residential properties are at risk as well as just over 1100ha of agricultural land. A very small area of international environmental designations is at risk as well as a small percentage of historic assets, for example 405 Listed Buildings and 354ha of Registered Parks and Gardens. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 17: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Derwent Derbyshire management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 416,500 21,150 No of services: 930 130

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 51,650 4,950 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 270 40 Railway (km): 110 30 Agricultural land (ha): 23,250 1,150

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 28 5 SAC (ha): 17,150 <50 SPA (ha): 16,000 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - World Heritage Site (ha): 5,550 950 SSSI (ha): 19,700 <50 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,750 350 SAMs (ha): 950 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 3,130 410 No of Licensed water abstractions: 200 50

Figure 26: Flooding from reservoirs: Derwent Derbyshire management catchment

Partnership working Derbyshire County Council has been successful in setting up a Strategic Flood Board, building on the partnership work undertaken by the Emergency Planning in coordinating flood response in recent years. The Strategic Flood Board operates across the whole of Derbyshire and picks up adjoining catchments to the Derwent that fall within Derbyshire. The Strategic Board has been used as a model for many other East Midlands authorities and is active in its relationships with flood resilience and warning as well as taking on the new roles and requirements resulting from the FWMA and FRR. Leadership of the Strategic Board rests with the Strategic Director – Economy, Transport and Environment, as many aspects of the act are related to an engineering approach. However the information gathered and the manner in which it is being made available will greatly inform, not only the Councils engineering teams but also the Emergency Services, Emergency Planning and Town and Country Planners. The Strategic Board currently comprises: Derbyshire County Council, Emergency Planning, District / Borough Authorities, Derby City Council, Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service, Derbyshire Police Constabulary, Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and Yorkshire Water. The Strategic Flood Board has links to Derbyshire Technical Flood Risk Group, Derbyshire LRF (including the Flood Risk sub-group), Flood Scrutiny Panels and other relevant groups. The Moors for the Future Partnership has been involved in a number of ground- breaking projects at the leading edge of conservation since 2003. It has grown to become the largest upland conservation initiative in Europe. The partnership covers several Environment Agency areas and is composed of the Derbyshire County Council, Environment Agency, National Trust, Natural England, Peak District National Park Authority, RSPB, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water. Through the restoration of moorland, the Partnership aims to deliver multiple beneficial outcomes for the local community in terms of amenity value, biodiversity, drinking water, river quality improvements, reducing flood risk and managing climate change. The Moors for the Future objectives aim to restore the peat bogs, which will reduce peak time runoff into the Derwent. For flood risk management purposes this can have benefits of reducing the rate at which water runs off from land and into nearby watercourses. This can help to provide a greater amount of time to offer flood warnings to local communities and to providing an overall reduction peak water levels. The Moors for the Future project is a good example of where flood risk management is working with natural processes to help achieve reduction in flood risk. As the impact of climate change increases the risk and impact of flooding, working with nature can help to better manage the effects of climate change where traditional flood risk engineering may no longer be economically viable. Conclusions and objectives for the Derwent Derbyshire catchment The Derwent Derbyshire management catchment covers an area of approximately 1200km2 with a population of approximately 420,000. The headwaters of the catchment lie within the Peak District National Park. This area is characterised by upland moorland and is sparsely populated in comparison to the mid and lower land

areas of the catchment. The greatest concentration of people in the catchment, live in the City of Derby, which lies to the south. Derby itself is split across the Derbyshire Derwent and the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchments. Other areas of significant population include the towns of Matlock, Belper and Duffield, which lie adjacent to the River Derwent, Buxton and Bakewell, in the Wye Valley, Wirksworth on the River Ecclesbourne catchment and Alfreton that lies in the River Amber catchment. The upland catchment results in a number of steep catchments in the upper reaches of the River Derwent. A number of steep sided, narrow valleys drop from the upper moorland. Numerous small communities are nestled within these valleys. The steep gradients and high level of rainfall experienced in the Upper Derwent catchment, along with the risk to life and property, mean that several of these catchments are deemed as rapid response catchments. Communities that are at risk from these rapidly responding catchments include Bradwell, Castleton, Cressbrook, Grindleford, Stoney Middleton, Rowsley, Buxton, Ashford-in-the-Water, Bakewell and Matlock. The upper catchment is distinguished between the carboniferous limestone of the White Peak area and the less permeable millstone grit of the Dark peak area. This also impacts upon the response of the catchment to rainfall, with a more rapid response to rainfall in the Dark Peak. The Moors for the Future partnership has been established across a number of organisations. This partnership has focused upon the upper moorland areas, of which the Upper Derwent catchment forms a part, to deliver outcomes linked to a number of environmental benefits, of which flood risk management forms a part. There is a long history of flooding linked to the River Derwent with major events occurring in the 1930s, 1960s and 2000. As a result of the flooding in 1965 a comprehensive flood defence scheme was constructed in Derby and Matlock. The flood defences in Derby are currently being reviewed as part of the ‘Our City Our River’ partnership project between the Environment Agency and Derby City Council. The risk of flooding from the River Derwent can impact upon residential properties, businesses, transport infrastructure and the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site. It is estimated that around 25,000 people live at risk of river flooding in the catchment, with nearly 5,000 of these people living in areas at the highest level of flood risk. The Upper Derwent has three large public water supply reservoirs. Whilst the reservoirs do provide an element of attenuation that creates some flood risk benefits, there exists a residual flood risk linked to the presence of such large volumes of water stored in these reservoirs. Surface water flooding is a significant issue across the catchment, in particular around Derby. Historically surface water has affected the city and in 2000 there was flooding of city areas linked to surface water and minor watercourse flooding. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 18 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Derwent Derbyshire management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 18: Relevant objectives: Derwent Derbyshire management catchment

ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  Measures across the Derwent Derbyshire catchment 21 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Derwent Derbyshire management catchment. A summary of measures based on protection, prevention and preparedness is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. Protection from flooding is a significant area of focus particularly within the City of Derby with 11 measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding, through structural and non structural action, identified within this plan. Derby City Council in their capacity as the LLFA are proposing work on watercourses in the City boundary that will help to protect property on the Bramble Brook, Cotton Brook, Egginton Brook, Littleover Brook and Cuttle Brook. The range of works, considered for protection, vary from culvert rehabilitation works, through to conveyance improvement works on some of the watercourse flowing through the City to earth embankments. The Environment Agency are looking at proposals to consider more traditional approaches of flood risk management through the protection of property in settlements like Bakewell and Ashford-in-the-Water and Duffield. In Shardlow there are existing flood defences that protect from both the River Trent and the River Derwent. The Environment Agency are looking at what engineering works are required to raise the defences to offer a standard of protection to property and businesses in the village to a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood event. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use Four measures associated with the prevention of damage caused by floods have been identified in the management catchment. These predominantly are linked to how working with the environment can help to achieve flood risk benefits whilst delivering environmental outcomes. Prevention measures include:  investigating ways of working with the environment to reconnect the floodplain with rivers, in areas of mineral workings, especially sand and gravel sites, to assist in improving flood risk management  consider opportunities for storing water in areas upstream of urban centres;  working in partnership to determine if the operations of reservoirs can be

altered to allow for greater attenuation of flood water, whilst not upsetting the balance of public water supply  deliver priority habitat and help to deliver flood risk management improvements by ensuring that appropriate designs are in place at the onset of a project  identify the potential for rehabilitating watercourses and developing plans for implementing land management improvements, all of which can have positive impacts upon flood risk Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood Six measures have been identified that deliver preparedness. These include:-  Investigate flood resilience for infrastructure, such as transportation links, energy services and telecommunications, by first understanding what key infrastructure is at risk of flooding, then determining how damages can be limited and what measures can be undertaken to prepare for flooding  Working with communities to develop flood warden schemes and improve the uptake of FWD  Improve flood forecasting through better warning and expansion of the service Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population No measures identified.

3.3. The Derwent Humber management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Derwent Humber management catchment is approximately 2,000km2 and is mainly rural, with a population of approximately 170,000. The seaside resort of Scarborough is the largest urban area, while inland there are dispersed market towns and villages, including Stamford Bridge, Malton, Norton, Helmsley, Pickering and Pocklington. The River Derwent rises in the North York Moors National Park at Fylingdale, close to the North Sea Coast, and flows southwards as far as its confluence with the river Hertford then westwards through the Vale of Pickering, south through Kirkham Gorge and the Vale of York and joins the River Ouse at Barmby-on-the -Marsh. Barmby Barrage is located at the confluence with the River Ouse to prevent tidal waters entering the lower River Derwent and to maintain water quality for drinking water abstraction and retain levels for navigation. The River Derwent provides 20% of the drinking water for Yorkshire, supplying Leeds, Wakefield, Sheffield and Hull from the river abstractions at Elvington and Barmby. There are also several spring and groundwater abstractions further up the catchment near West Ayton, which can reduce flow in the Derwent. The catchment is bordered by four others in the Yorkshire and North East Region, the Esk and Coast, Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse, Wharfe and Lower Ouse and the Hull and East Riding. It is also bordered by the Tees management catchment, which is located within the Northumberland RBD. This RBD is managed by Environment Agency’s Yorkshire and North East Region. On the coast, the Derwent Humber management catchment is bordered by the River Tyne to Flamborough Head Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) and mainly covers three Policy Development Zones: PDZ10, PDZ11 and PDZ12. Topography The Derwent catchment is predominantly low lying. In the north, the North York Moors rise to over 150m, with the North West reaching between 300m and 350m above sea level. Upland tributaries drain the highest parts of the moors through 5 main valleys, which lead to the River Rye. Moving eastwards, Pickering Beck and the River Derwent also drain the moors. Although the coastline does form part of the boundary, the topography does not allow direct drainage to the sea. Instead the River Derwent initially (and unusually for this part of the country) flows westwards to just north of Malton. Here it is joined by the River Rye, then continues southwards to join the River Ouse at Barmby and then the Humber Estuary. This is due to higher ground known as the Wolds which can be found in the Hull and East Riding management catchment and which forms a barrier to rivers draining to the east. The exception to this is the Sea Cut, a man-made channel running from the headwaters of the Derwent to Scalby, near Scarborough, and was designed to protect drinking water abstractions by diverting polluted water. It is now also used as a relief channel to take river water directly to the sea during flooding. The last glaciation changed the landscape of the Derwent catchment dramatically. As ice melted, it formed Lake Pickering, which covered much of the north eastern part of the CFMP area. This then eventually drained away leaving a complex network of

watercourses and marshland areas. The area has subsequently been artificially drained and in addition to the rivers, the landscape is now crossed by a network of canalised water courses, cuts and drainage dykes.

Figure 27: Overview map of the Derwent Humber management catchment

Geology and soils The underlying geology of the management catchment is of Jurassic and Triassic age. At its source the River Derwent and its tributaries run over Corallian limestone from the Jurassic geological period. Downstream of Stamford Bridge, the catchment area is mainly of Sherwood sandstone and Mercian mudstone from the Triassic period. Some of the underlying rocks are major aquifers and provide a valuable source for water supply in the area. The major aquifers are the Corallian limestone, chalk and Sherwood sandstone. The Corallian limestone outcrops on the hills surrounding the Vale of Pickering and is made up of a series of limestones and sandstones. Corallian Limestone, located in much of the upper catchment, is fissured and permeable, allowing surface waters to infiltrate into the ground easily. This can cause many of the upper tributaries to run dry during the summer months, only flowing when the input from the stored groundwater levels are higher, after prolonged periods of rain. The rivers flow off the North York Moors and into the Vale of Pickering, where much of the flood problems are experienced in towns such as Pickering, Sinnington, Helmsley, Kirbymoorside and Malton/Norton. The Vale is underlain by impermeable clays, therefore there is limited opportunity for surface water to percolate into the ground, and therefore a much higher proportion of the rainfall must drain towards the river. In addition, there are spring lines where the permeable geology meets the impermeable drift, therefore inputting more water to river flow so contributing to the fluvial flooding, as seen in recent years in Kirby Mills and Malton/Norton. Land use and land management The catchment is characterised by mainly good to moderate quality agricultural land, with 57% of the catchment being grade 3 agricultural land. The lower lying areas and open valley bottoms in the Vale of Pickering and Lower Derwent are higher grades 2 and 3, with a small area of Grade 1 around the confluence with the Ouse around Barmby-on-the-Marsh. The majority of the land within the management catchment is used for arable agriculture (34%) or improved grassland (17%). Urban land use occupies less than 1% of the management catchment. Large urban areas include Scarborough, Scalby, Pocklington, Norton, Pickering, Filey and Eastfield. There are a number of smaller towns, including Burniston, Seamer, Stamford Bridge, Malton and Thornton Dale. Hydrology The annual total rainfall ranges from 1150mm in the headwaters of the River Derwent to around 630mm of rain each year in coastal areas. The upper catchment tributaries respond quickly to periods of heavy rainfall, as the watercourses here lay within steep sided small valleys. Downstream from the Vale of Pickering it is relatively flat and there are the first in a series of washlands, which fill up during floods. From the Vale of Pickering downstream water levels can remain high for several days, as demonstrated by the floods of March 1999 and November 2000 when river levels were elevated for 8 to 10 days. Both floods were attributed to prolonged wet conditions combined with a period of heavy rainfall over the North York Moors. Groundwater movement has the potential to contribute significantly to catchment response. The Derwent is predominantly a groundwater fed river with flows being dependent on the levels in the main aquifers. Following prolonged dry periods, such as 1989 to 1992 and 1995 to 1997, the baseflow can be considerably reduced by the lowering of groundwater levels. During dry summers, the flow at West Ayton in the upper catchment can drop to zero as water runs into Corallian Limestone major aquifer via ‘swallow holes’ in the riverbed upstream.

The natural environment The management catchment has a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. There are six SACs and two SPAs (Lower Derwent Valley and North York Moors) in the management catchment as well as one Ramsar site (Lower Derwent Valley). The designation of the River Derwent is important when considering flood risk management as the river itself is designated for multiple reasons including it being one of the largest and most important examples of traditionally managed species-rich alluvial flood meadow habitat remaining in the UK. As well as this there are 82 SSSIs which include a wide variety of different habitats including magnesium limestone grasslands, woodlands, hay meadows and expanses of open water. There are three NNRs within the management catchment (Forge Valley Woodlands, Duncombe Park and Lower Derwent Valley) as well as two LNRs (Millington Woods and Howden Marsh). The historic environment There are no world heritage sites within the Derwent Humber management catchment. There are however approximately 870 SAMs which include Allerston Lime Kilns, Ayton Castle, Hagg Bridge, Helmsley Bridge, Old Malton Priory Church, Scarborough Castle and Wressle Castle. As well as this there are 11 Registered Parks and Gardens as listed below:  Rievaulx Terrace – Grade I;  Nunnington Hall – Grade II;  Aldby Park – Grade II*;  Scampston Hall – Grade II;  Castle Howard – Grade I;  Sheriff Hutton Park – Grade II*;  Duncombe Park – Grade I;  Peasholme Park – Grade II;  Ebberston Hall – Grade II*;  South Cliff Gardens – Grade II.  Gilling Castle – Grade II; There is one registered battlefield: the Battle of Stamford Bridge which took place in 1066 between the Saxons and Vikings. The area has remained essentially unchanged since the battle, being arable land, although the field hedge boundaries would not have been present. An area of ridge and furrow at the centre of the battlefield is a last vestige of the medieval cultivation system. Stamford Bridge has also been a crossing point for the River Derwent from at least Roman times, although the site of the bridge has changed. As well as these, there are a large number of Listed Buildings and conservations areas within the management catchment. As with local environmental designations, their importance is recognised, however they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding The management catchment has experienced a long history of flooding most recently in 1999, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2012 and 2015. Communities affected by these floods include Sinnington, Pickering, Helmsley, Malton, Norton, Scarborough, Pocklington and Elvington. Many of these recent events have been flashy in nature and have occurred in small steep catchments, for example Helmsley and Hawnby in 2005.

During this event, which took place on the 19th June 2005, unusually intense rainfall caused flooding in several villages and small towns in the southwest part of the North York Moors. The Hawnby rain gauge showed that 70mm of rain (June average) fell in two hours, with 60mm falling in a 30 minute period. In affected areas light rain suddenly turned to deluge and within 20 minutes severe flooding was taking place. Huge volumes of surface run-off quickly overwhelmed surface drainage systems and sewers causing floodwaters to enter properties and washing away cars, trees and livestock. Around 121 properties were affected. The floodwaters moved rapidly into the River Rye and Cod Beck and the banks of the watercourses were overtopped in Helmsley and Thirsk respectively. Over the course of 2012, there were 11 flood events across England and Wales as a result of rainfall between April and December being 161% of the long term. In Yorkshire 2012 was the wettest year since at least 1910. Between the 23rd and 25th September the residual elements of Hurricane Nadine saw two months of rainfall (over 100mm) falling over Yorkshire resulting in high groundwater and river levels. Most recently, a number of communities were affected by the winter flooding of 2015/16. As noted above, Malton and Norton were affected by groundwater flooding whilst a number of communities, including Stamford Bridge, Pocklington and Elvington saw properties directly impacted by river flooding. The rapid nature of recent flooding in the Derwent Humber catchment demonstrates the risks to people that may arise during such events. As a result, six rapid response catchments have been identified within the Ryedale area: Helmsley, Hawnby, Rievaulx, Levisham Station, Fangdale Beck and Pickering.

Malton and Norton flooding: 2012 and 2015 The combination of existing defences and operational response ensured that the level of property flooding that occurred was relatively low –20 properties suffered internal flooding. However, the impact upon the community was significant. Ground water springs appeared behind the flood defences, requiring emergency pumping operations. Surface water ponded around Mill Beck in Norton, near to a pumping station operated by the Environment Agency. Overwhelming of the sewer network added to these problems. The Environment Agency and Fire Brigade jointly pumped the surface water under the railway line into the River. In Old Malton, where underground clay met limestone, there was more flooding. There were reports of water percolating through the floors in people’s houses, meaning it was unclear whether the flooding was a result of surface water or ground water, or a combination of both. In December 2015, groundwater flooding was again experienced in Malton and Norton. Following significant rainfall throughout November and December, groundwater levels reached the highest ever recorded at Broughton borehole. Although groundwater levels were higher than 2012, the impact of flooding was significantly lower than that experienced in 2012. This was due to the successful implementation of a pumping plan which was developed by a Multi Agency Flood Group led by North Yorkshire County Council, following the 2012 flooding. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment.

Flooding from rivers and the sea A large area of land within the Derwent Humber management catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Key communities at risk include Scarborough, Pickering, Malton, Norton, Stamford Bridge, Elvington and Pocklington. Approximately 6,500 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, representing approximately 4% of the total population. Just over 3,100 non- residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, nearly half of which are at low risk and only 1% at high risk. Around 11% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with most (approximately 15,000 ha) being at medium risk. The River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP identifies, in more detail, the risk of sea flooding to communities along the coastal boundary of the management catchment. Generally, sea flooding primarily affects Scarborough. Over both bay frontages there are considerable levels of overtopping around Marine Drive, Royal Albert Drive, Northern Bay Promenade and Sea Life Centre and on Foreshore Road. Many of these locations have now seen a reduction in flood risk due to mitigation works however there remains a risk of flooding to properties along Foreshore Road. Table 19: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Derwent Humber management catchment

Total in High Mediu Low Very management risk m risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 181,800 650 2,350 3,500 <50 No of services: 500 10 30 20 0

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 46,700 450 1,200 1,450 <50 No of airports: 0 - - - - Roads (km): 200 <10 <10 <10 0 Railway (km): 70 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 134,450 4,500 5,500 5,150 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters 1 1 0 0 0 within 50m: No of EPR installations within 50m: 23 0 1 0 0 SAC (ha): 21,700 850 350 150 0 SPA (ha): 21,450 650 350 150 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 900 500 300 100 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 24,850 1,000 400 200 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2,200 50 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 1,300 <50 50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,900 110 100 130 <10 No of Licensed water abstractions: 420 140 30 10 0

The River Derwent and its tributaries have been significantly altered by flood defence works over many years. As the catchment is predominantly rural in nature, the majority of flood defence works were undertaken to drain land to allow productive agriculture to take place in previously wetland areas.

The construction of the Sea Cut and Mowthorpe sluice in the early 1800s dramatically reduced widespread flash flooding in the Vale of Pickering and allowed further wide-scale land drainage work to take place over the next 150-170 years. The Sea Cut is an artificial drainage channel which runs eastward from the Derwent at Mowthorpe to Scalby, north of Scarborough. A sluice has been constructed at the western end of the Sea Cut which allows normal flows to pass down the River Derwent, but restricts flood flows arising from the Derwent headwaters and re-directs these down the Sea Cut and into the North Sea. The lower reaches of the River Derwent south of Stamford Bridge flow over wide flat land in the Vale of York and the river is flanked by natural floodplain grassland (known as ‘ings’), notably from Wheldrake downstream. The Derwent Ings flood regularly and are today designated of European conservation importance for their flood meadow plant communities and the bird life they support. At the confluence between the River Derwent and the River Ouse is the Barmby Barrage. The barrage was built primarily for water resources purposes as it impounds the water in the lower reaches of the Derwent making it available for abstraction.

Figure 28: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Derwent Humber management catchment

Flooding from local sources Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. In preparing the Humber FRMP North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council have included their local information regarding these sources of flooding – as further defined in their published LFRMS. As illustrated in Figure 29, a large area of the Derwent Humber management catchment is affected by surface water flooding. These risks are taken into account in the relevant LFRMS and also represented within SFRA. SFRAs assess the different levels of flood risk in a local authority area and map these to assist with statutory land use planning. They provide concise information on flood risk issues, which assist planning officers in the preparation of the Local Plan in the assessment of future planning applications. The relevant SFRAs for the Derwent Humber management catchment can be viewed at:  City of York SFRA 2013: SFRA 2013  East Riding of Yorkshire Council SFRA Level 1: http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control  The North East Yorkshire SFRA (2006) which covers Ryedale District Council, Scarborough Borough Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority: North East Yorkshire SFRA (2006) Together the LFRMS and SFRAs provide a comprehensive assessment of local flood risk within the Derwent Humber management catchment.

Figure 29: Flooding from surface water: Derwent Humber management catchment

Flooding from reservoirs There are 10 reservoirs in the catchment. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 400 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Derwent Humber management catchment, representing just 0.2% of the total population. Approximately 150 non-residential properties are at risk as well as nearly 1,200ha of agricultural land. A small area of international environmental designations is at risk as well as a very small percentage of historic assets, for example 20 listed building and 39ha of registered parks and gardens. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 20: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Derwent Humber management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: o N of people: 181,800 400 No of services: 500 10

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 46,700 150 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 200 <10 Railway (km): 70 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 134,450 1,200

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 1 0 No of EPR installations within 50m: 23 6 SAC (ha): 21,700 100 SPA (ha): 21,400 <50 RAMSAR site (ha): 900 <50 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 24,850 100 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2,200 <50 SAMs (ha): 1,300 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 2,900 20 No of Licensed water abstractions: 420 40

Figure 30: Flooding from reservoirs: Derwent Humber management catchment

Coastal erosion Coastal erosion and slippage is a significant issue along the coastal section of the Derwent Humber management catchment. Around Scarborough North Bay, there are minor slippage problems in comparison to major risk of coastal slope instability in the Scarborough Spa area, Holbeck Gardens and Cayton Bay. Many of these areas of concern are retained by sea walls, for example Scarborough North Bay and Spa, however in locations such as Cayton Bay, may remain relatively stable for long periods of time, with sudden and, in some locations, quite major movement. This is seen at the southern end at Speeton but is also evidenced by the level terraces on the cliff face such as at Flat Cliff. Along the whole cliff line, drainage and water tables are critical, so that periods of heavy rain may destabilise slopes earlier than might be anticipated from mere erosion rates. The development of the land to the crest of the cliff is important in this, in that large runoff from areas of hard development or drainage of land may be critical in terms of cliff stability. Holbeck Hall hotel, Scarborough: June 1993 The Holbeck landslide, south of Scarborough, occurred between 3-5th June 1993 and destroyed the four-star Holbeck Hall Hotel. The first indication of any movement was identified six weeks prior to the event when some relatively minor cracking was noted at two points. The cracks reopened approximately four weeks later and approximately 48hours before the landslip there was some extensive movement on the line of the two cracks. For the first time, movement appeared within the hotel grounds indicating that there could be a major landslide. During the evening of the third, major movement occurred and by midnight the Hotel Manager reported that the rose garden on the edge of the hotel site had sunk by some 4ft. Just seven hours later the back of the landslide transferred from the edge of the hotel site to approximately 20m from the hotel. Tremors continued over the next few days until approximately 40% of the hotel building was within the landslip itself. As well as the loss of the hotel, the cost of the event was significant. The total cost of making the site secure amounted to over £50,000 whilst the final overall cost for the works reached over £1.5million. The SMP identified a programme of works for further investigating these issues and as a result significant progress has been made with the publication of the Scarborough Coastal Defence Strategy in 2007. Works continue on the revision of the Filey Bay Coastal Strategy and Cayton Bay Coastal Strategy which were both published in 2002. Measures associated with the SMP and Scarborough Coastal Defence Strategy (2007) has been incorporated in the Humber FRMP and can be viewed in Annex 1. Relevant coastal strategies, including the SMP, can be viewed here. Partnership working As noted in Part A of the FRMP, managing flood and coastal risks, and particularly local flood risks, requires many organisations to work together in partnership. Within the Derwent Humber management catchment the following RMAs work closely together to identify, plan and deliver flood risk and coastal erosion projects in our day-to-day work and formally through the North Yorkshire Flood Risk Partnership:  North Yorkshire County Council  Vale of Pickering IDB  City of York Council  Scarborough Borough Council  Yorkshire Water Services  Environment Agency  Highways Authority

 York Consortium of Drainage  Ouse and Humber IDB Boards As well as this RMAs work the district authorities in North Yorkshire including Scarborough Borough Council in their role as Maritime District Authority. Find out more:

One example of how the Information regarding Local Enterprise different organisations work Partnerships can be found here: together to manage flood risk is through the ‘Slowing York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEP: the Flow’ project at Pickering http://www.businessinspiredgrowth.com/ led by Forest Research. This Humber LEP: http://www.humberlep.org/ is a partnership project comprising all of the key players concerned with local land use management and planning including major landowners (i.e. Forestry Commission, Duchy of Lancaster, Ministry of Defence), North York Moors National Park, North Yorkshire County Council, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission. This is an ongoing project exploring a new approach to flood risk management. The project works with nature to try and store more water in the landscape and slow its passage downstream. Whilst this will not prevent all flooding, it is expected to reduce the frequency of future floods in Pickering, as well as deliver a range of other benefits to the local environment and community. Economic sustainability The scale of development and the future pressure for development is important in the long term planning for flood risk and coastal erosion risk management. Firstly, impermeable surfaces can lead to runoff bypassing soil; increased volume of storm run-off and reduced travel times; increased flood peaks; reduced groundwater recharge and reduced low flows. Secondly, inappropriately located development can lead to an increase in flood risk to those properties placed within known FRAs and also to sites downstream due to increased runoff. It is vitally important to recognise the need for development and regeneration to allow sustainable economic growth to take place; this is supported by national and local planning policy. There is pressure for development and regeneration within the Derwent Humber management catchment, however not to the scale expected within the Humber and South and West Yorkshire. The York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership have been allocated €110m from the EU Structural and Investment Fund through the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). The partnership predicts that investment which promotes business to grow, enlarge the local agritech and renewable energy sector, improve the transport infrastructure and unlock land for residential developments could result in up to £3bn of further economic growth across the region. Within the Strategic Economic Plan, Malton and Norton have been identified as a Growth area which will be the focus for new large scale employment development, particularly focused on the food industry. As well as this, Scarborough has been identified as a growth area for housing and employment. As noted, these communities are affected by flooding and coastal erosion and therefore the need for sustainable development is a priority for the Environment Agency, LLFA and Maritime District Authority.

Conclusions and objectives for the Derwent Humber catchment The Derwent Humber management catchment is approximately 2,000km2 and is mainly rural, with a dispersed population of approximately 170,000. The upper catchment respond quickly to periods of heavy rainfall, as the watercourses here lay within steep sided small valleys. As such, six rapid response catchments have been identified: Fangdale Beck, Hawnby, Rievaulx Abbey, Pickering, Lewisham Station and Helmsley. In the lower catchment, from the Vale of Pickering downstream, water levels can remain high for several days, as demonstrated by the floods of March 1999 and November 2000 when river levels were elevated for 8 to 10 days. Groundwater movement has the potential to contribute significantly to catchment response. The Derwent is predominantly a groundwater fed river with flows being dependent on the levels in the main aquifers. In addition, there are spring lines where the permeable geology meets the impermeable drift, therefore inputting more water to river flow so contributing to the fluvial flooding, as seen in recent years. As a result, flood risk is a complex interaction between river, surface water and groundwater. The management catchment has a wealth of environmental designations including six SACs, two SPAs, 82 SSSIs, three NNRs, two LNRs and 1 Ramsar site. The management catchment has experienced a long history of flooding most recently in 1999, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2012 and 2015. Communities affected by these floods include Sinnington, Pickering, Helmsley, Malton, Norton, Scarborough and Pocklington and Elvington. Approximately 6,500 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, representing approximately 4% of the total population. Around 11% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with most being at medium risk. Sea flooding primarily affects Scarborough, particularly along Foreshore Road. There are 10 reservoirs in the catchment with around 0.2% of the population falling within the extreme flood outline. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Coastal erosion and slippage is a significant issue along the coastal section of the Derwent Humber management catchment. Around Scarborough North Bay, there are minor slippage problems in comparison to major risk of coastal slope instability in the Scarborough Spa area, Holbeck Gardens and Cayton Bay. Along the whole cliff line, drainage and water tables are critical, so that periods of heavy rain may destabilise slopes earlier than might be anticipated from mere erosion rates. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 21 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Derwent Humber management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 21: Relevant objectives: Derwent Humber management catchment

Reference Objective Relevant? ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  As previously noted, North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council have volunteered to include their local flooding information from their LFRMS. Within these strategies the councils set out their own objectives for managing local flood risk within their administrative areas. Figure 31 shows the objectives that these councils are aiming to deliver. Objectives relating to the management of coastal issues can be found in the relevant coastal strategies which can be viewed here.

Figure 31: LFRMS objectives relevant to the Derwent Humber management catchment Measures across the Derwent Humber catchment Over 100 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Derwent Humber management catchment. This includes a number of measures that have been taken from existing plans and strategies that have been provided on a voluntary basis by our partners including:  North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS x 17  City of York Local LFRMS x 19  River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP x 12  Scarborough Coastal Defence Strategy (2007) x 13

A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. 31 measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding, through structural and non structural action, have been identified in the Derwent Humber management catchment. As would be expected, almost half of these (14) have come directly from detailed strategies (River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP and Scarborough Coastal Defence Strategy). These strategies have carried out more detailed assessment of risk and have therefore identified a number of large coastal capital schemes within Scarborough which focus around the refurbishment or replacement of existing seawalls. Outside of these strategies, measures can be summarised as:  The maintenance of existing assets such as culverts, river banks and river defences  The ongoing development and delivery of a prioritised programme of projects (the MTP)  The delivery of the “Doing more for the Derwent” project which is looking to review the operation of existing assets at Kirkham Sluice, Stamford Bridge, Elvington Sluice and Barmby Barrage A number of high profile protection measures have been identified for delivery within the first cycle of the FRMP (2015-21) including the Scarborough Spa coastal erosion scheme looking to protect 380 properties at an estimated cost of £14million. Two measures have been identified that relate to natural flood management/run off and catchment management. These are associated with the creation of wet woodland habitat in the Upper Derwent and the Rye to reduce flood risk in Helmsley and Thornton le Dale. It should be noted that the RBD wide measure to look for opportunities for natural flood management is likely to identify a number of possible options for this catchment. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use The prevention of damage caused by floods is a significant focus of work within the Derwent Humber management catchment with 39 measures being identified, 34 of these being associated with the further assessment of flood risk through the development of strategies, monitoring programmes and flood risk modelling. Examples of these measures include:  Bed level surveys between Elvington and the mouth of the River Derwent  Analysis of data on local flood risks (surface water, OW and groundwater)  Cliff stability assessments at Flat Cliffs and Filey  Filey and Cayton Bay Strategy which will set the long term vision for the management of flood risk and coastal erosion in Filey and Cayton Bay Four measures have been identified relating to the adaptation of receptors to reduce the consequences of flooding. These are all taken from North Yorkshire County Councils and City of York LFRMS and relate to inputting to Local

Development Plans, working with LEPs to deliver regeneration and flood protection and the role of LLFAs as statutory consultees on planning applications. Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood 29 measures have been identified that deliver preparedness, the majority of which relate to improving the flood forecasting and warning service as well as increasing public awareness so they know what to do in the event of flooding. A number of potential forecasting and warning improvements for specific communities have been identified for example Thornton-le-Dale, Scalby, Hovingham, Stamford Bridge and Pocklington. Throughout the catchment the Environment Agency will continue to encourage the take up of Floodline Warnings Direct (FWD), particularly in communities where this falls below 50%. Throughout the Derwent (Humber) management catchment there are a number of existing community warden schemes and/or community flood plans in place. The Environment Agency is committed to continue working with these communities to ensure they feel prepared for flooding and where required support the development of warden schemes or flood plans to support their existing levels of preparedness. These communities are Scalby, Elvington, Pocklington, Hovingham and Pickering. There are six rapid response catchments within the management catchment (Fangdale Beck, Hawnby, Rievaulx Abbey, Pickering, Lewisham Station and Helmsley). The Environment Agency will work with these communities to learn from those named above to encourage the development of community warden schemes and/or community flood plans. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population 7 measures associated with recovery and review have been identified by North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council through their LFRMS. These measures are associated with their statutory duty, under Section 19 of the FWMA, to assess and investigate flooding incidents with their authority areas. It should be noted that in response to the winter 2015/16 flooding in York, a review is being carried out by all responsible RMAs. As well as this, an independent review has been commissioned by City of York Council. The recommendations of these reviews will be taken forward where appropriate.

100

3.4. The Don and Rother management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Don catchment is large, extending over 1,800 km2. The upper parts of the catchment comprise the relatively steep-sided and well-defined valleys of the Pennine fringe, including Chesterfield, Sheffield and Barnsley. The middle reaches include Rotherham and extensive artificially controlled washlands. The lower part of the catchment includes Doncaster and the low-lying floodplain area of the Humberhead Levels. The Humberhead Levels contain the lower reaches of several Main Rivers, including the Trent, Don, Torne, Went, Idle, Aire, Ouse and Derwent, and the Humber estuary. The management catchment is bordered by three others in the Yorkshire region; the Aire and Calder, Wharfe and Lower Ouse, and the Hull and East Riding. It is also bordered by the Derwent Derbyshire, Lower Trent and Erewash and the Idle and Torne management catchment. As well as this, the Upper Mersey management catchment borders the uplands and is located within the North West RBD. Topography The topography of the Don and Rother catchment is characterised by the upland moors in the upper reaches and flatter, lower gradient lowlands with wide floodplains in the lower reaches. The nature of the topography indicates a faster, ‘flashy’ system in the uplands, with water levels and flows responding to rainfall in a shorter time. In contrast, the flatter lower-lying parts of the lower catchment show slower responses.

101

Figure 32: Overview map of the Don and Rother management catchment

102

Geology and soils There are three main bands of geology that are typical throughout the area. The Millstone Grit Formation and shallow coal measure deposits of the Yorkshire Coalfield underlie the western side of the catchment. Laid down in the Carboniferous era, millstone grit and coal measures are classified as minor aquifers and as such rainfall falling in this area is likely to run-off quickly. To the east the underlying rocks are Perma-Triassic magnesium limestones and marls. An outcrop of the magnesium limestone, approximately 6km wide, forms a gentle ridge running north - south between Castleford and Sprotbrough. Although classed as a major aquifer, yields are variable. Limestone is highly permeable and the groundwater baseflow from the aquifer provides an important contribution to surface water flows in the River Went. Further to the east, Jurassic Sherwood Sandstone underlies the low-lying flood plain between Doncaster and Goole. This is a major aquifer. Both this and the magnesium limestone are extensively used for industrial, agricultural and public and private potable water supply. Although springs in the millstone grit and coal measures areas of the upper catchment input into the Rivers Don, Sheaf, Hipper, Dearne and Rother, there is very little connectivity between ground and surface waters throughout the rest of the catchment with the exception of the River Went. Groundwater baseflows from the magnesian limestone aquifer provide important contributions to surface water flows in the River Went. Gley soils are abundant throughout the catchment. Gleying is a result of drainage and is almost independent of climate. Surface gleys are caused by slow infiltration rates through topsoil whilst the groundwater gleys found across large parts of the area result from a seasonal rise in the water table or impermeable parent rock. The peaty soils found in the north-western upland sections of the catchment can contain large amounts of water when dry. However once saturated the soils become impermeable and surface runoff increases. The soils of the Lower Don are typically ‘brown earth’ soils, the general term ‘brown earth’ denoting an extensive grouping of soils, generally free-draining. Land use and land management A large proportion of the catchment is defined as agricultural. The upper reaches are dominated by rough and wet pasture and used for rearing livestock and dairy farming. The more flat productive farmland of the Humberhead Levels in the lower reaches is predominantly used for intensive arable farming. The western area of the catchment, on the higher ground of the Pennines and Peak District, is mainly grade 4 or 5 soils (poor quality) with peat generally above 380mAOD on the high moors. In the central area of the catchment, the land improves in quality to predominantly a complex mix of grades 2, 3 and 4; and in the lower eastern area to largely grade 2 with small pockets of grade 1. The majority of the grade 1 land is located in the Lower Don, and this is an important area for agriculture. Artificial pumping is undertaken by the IDBs to maintain suitable conditions for agriculture. The catchment contains a complex mix of built up areas, industrial landscape and open country. The largest areas of residential development in the upper catchment are at Sheffield, Stocksbridge, Chesterfield, Rotherham and Barnsley. In the lower catchment the largest areas of residential development are in Doncaster and the smaller settlements of Thorne, Bentley, Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall, Barnby Dun, Stainforth and Hatfield.

103

Hydrology The annual total rainfall ranges from 1,750mm in the upland Pennine areas to around 550mm of rain each year in low lying areas. The upper catchment tributaries respond quickly to periods of heavy rainfall, as the watercourses here lay within steep-sided small valleys. Historic data records show an average annual snow cover of 55 days at Moorhouse (550m above sea level) and of more than 100 days on Cross Fell. Many of the great historic floods on the River Don have been caused by snowmelt, or a combination of snowmelt and rainfall. The catchment is an extensively modified system due to washlands, drainage and pumping. Catchment response and hydrology may not therefore fully reflect the natural topographic characteristics of the area. The Rivers Don, Rother and Dearne and their many tributaries principally make up the Don and Rother catchment. Steepest and fastest responding of the three is the Don. It is a Pennine river, albeit a heavily modified one, rising in the Peak District and arriving in Sheffield with little natural floodplain. The Rother and Dearne are less steep in their headwaters and have long middle reaches with extensive floodplain, much of which is now formalised as washland. The Rother and Dearne have in-line control structures called river regulators which hold water back in a flood. Below Doncaster, the course of the Don is unusually flat. This area is drained marshland and the whole lower catchment is dependent on a long network of raised defences for flood protection. Doncaster typically sees high river levels for more than 24 hours. Downstream of Doncaster the Don is joined by the River Went, a slow responding tributary in the tidal reach of the river. The natural environment There is a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. There are no Ramsar sites within the catchment. The Peak District Moors, on the western border of the catchment, are designated as a SPA and SAC (known as South Pennine Moors SAC). Thorne and Hatfield Moors is an area of raised mire habitat between the Don and Trent on the eastern edge of the catchment, which is also an SPA and SAC. As well as this there are 33 SSSIs which include a wide variety of different habitats but upland moorland habitat and lowland raised mire habitat form the most significant areas of designated habitat in the catchment. There is one NNR (Humberhead Peatland) as well as 30 LNRs including Dearne Valley Park, Ecclesall Woods and Firsby Reservoir. The historic environment There are no world heritage sites or registered battlefields within the Don and Rother catchment. There are however almost 200 SAMs including 23 in Barnsley, 50 in Doncaster, 37 in Rotherham, and 47 in Sheffield. In addition, there are 30 Registered Parks and Gardens including Norfolk Heritage Park, Moorgate Cemetery and Sandbeck Park and Roche Abbey. As well as these, there are a large number of Listed Buildings and conservations areas within the catchment. As per local environmental designations, we as risk management authorities recognise their importance however they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes.

104

History of flooding The management catchment has a long history of flooding. The earliest recorded flood is in 1681 in the Thorne area of Doncaster, with numerous historical accounts of flooding occurring within the catchment since. Particularly notable floods are those of 1932 (River Rother at Killamarsh), 1947 (River Rother at Treeton, Don at Bentley, Fishlake), 1958 and 1973 (River Sheaf, Porter Brook and River Don across Sheffield) to name but a few locations. Impacts were felt by many communities around Barnsley, Rotherham, Sheffield, Doncaster and parts of Derbyshire. Major flood events affecting many communities significantly within the catchment are 1947 (River Don at Bentley, Arksey, Fishlake, Sykehouse), 2000 (lower reaches of the River Don and Sheffield, River Rother around Killamarsh, Rother Valley, Catcliffe, town centre and Kilnhurst), 2007 (most of the catchment) and most recently 2012 (Dearne and Don around Conisbrough), 2013 (tidal areas of the Don and Ouse) and 2014 (upper Rother and Don). Many of these recent flood events have occurred as a result of large volumes of floodwaters overwhelming floodplain storage in lower-lying parts of the catchment, although the upper catchment can experience flash flooding such as the events of 2014 in Rotherham and Sheffield. During the summer 2007 event, which took place around the 15th and 25th June, heavy and prolonged rain fell on Yorkshire and other areas, with four times the June average falling on parts of the North York Moors and the South Pennines. The heaviest rain was recorded over these two weeks. The River Don was one of the worst impacted rivers nationally, flooding Sheffield and Rotherham and many other areas within the catchment. A substation inundation meant 40,000 people were without power in Sheffield; several people died in floodwaters and Ulley Reservoir, near Rotherham saw structural damage. As a consequence 1000 people were evacuated and the M1 was closed for 2 days as a precaution. In Sheffield the 2007 flood event caused hundreds of millions of pounds of damage across the city and put the public at significant risk. The commercial and industrial area of the Lower Don Valley was particularly severely affected and it was many months before the area returned to normal. The Nursery Street FAS has been completed since the 2007 event but there are multiple projects ongoing across the catchment to manage flood risk including the Lower Don Valley FAS. The rapid nature of recent flooding in the Don and Rother management catchment demonstrates the risks to people that may arise during such events. As a result, 10 rapid response catchments have been identified within the Don and Rother area, focusing on the sub-catchments of the upper Don and Rother. The tidal surge that hit the east coast of England on 5 December 2013 was the most serious for 60 years. The surge was a result of a combination of high winds, low pressure and high tides pushing a ‘bulge’ of water into both the Irish and North seas. The North Sea reached more than 2m above predicted tide levels, putting a serious strain on sea defences all along the east coast. People living along the length of the coast felt the full impact of the extreme weather conditions, impacting communities along the Ouse and Lower Don such Reedness.

105

Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea A large area of land within the Don and Rother management catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, as seen in Figure 33. Key communities at risk include Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Chesterfield. Approximately 70,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea within the Don and Rother management catchment, representing approximately 5 % of the total population. Just over 14,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, the majority of which are at medium and low risk, with 6 % at high risk. Around 20% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with most (approximately 14,000ha) being at medium risk and low risk. Table 22: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Don and Rother management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 1,503,000 1,200 31,100 38,100 <50 No of services: 2,230 60 80 120 0

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 112,300 850 5,050 8,600 <50 No of airports: 0 - - - - Roads (km): 730 <10 60 40 0 Railway (km): 370 20 40 60 0 Agricultural land (ha): 82,500 2,050 4,800 9,300 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 90 13 7 15 0 50m: SAC (ha): 10,200 100 750 600 <50 SPA (ha): 10,400 100 750 600 <50 RAMSAR site (ha): 50 <50 <50 <50 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 10,950 200 750 650 <50 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2,600 100 50 50 <50 SAMs (ha): 300 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 3,630 80 80 160 0 No of Licensed water 280 80 30 30 0 abstractions:

The varied landscape within the Don and Rother catchment gives rise to differing fluvial response to rainfall. The upper reaches of the catchment for example can experience rapidly responding rivers where the onset of localised flooding can be very quick and have significant impacts. The lower reaches of the catchment are relatively flat and will experience a slower response but levels can remain high for many days and weeks. Below Crimpsall, the Don is tidal.

106

Figure 33: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Don and Rother management catchment

107

Flooding from local sources Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. The management catchment principally covers Barnsley, Derbyshire, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield LLFAs; however, small areas of East Riding, Kirklees, North Yorkshire and Wakefield LLFAs are also covered by the catchment. In preparing the Humber FRMP North Yorkshire County Council and Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council have included their local information regarding these sources of flooding – as further defined in their published LFRMS. North Yorkshire County Council and Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council have chosen to work collaboratively on this plan, and so within their authority areas this plan covers all sources of flood risk. Their high level actions and measures for local sources of flooding have been included as voluntary measures as it is not a statutory requirement to include them within this plan. Kirklees actions have been provided in detail within the Aire and Calder management catchment summary as the majority of their council area is covered by this particular management catchment boundary; however, it should be noted that a small area of Kirklees Council authority is covered by the Don and Rother catchment (Dearne). Information about local/other sources of risk may also be available in SWMPs and SFRA produced by the LLFA or LPAs.

108

Figure 34: Flooding from surface water: Don and Rother management catchment

109

Flooding from reservoirs There are 103 reservoirs in the catchment, used for water supply, storage and recreational purposes. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that just over 57,000 people are at risk from flooding resulting from a failure of a reservoir in the catchment, approximately 4% of the population within the management catchment. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 23: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Don and Rother management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 1,503,000 57,650 No of services: 2,230 190

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 112,300 11,000 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 730 70 Railway (km): 370 50 Agricultural land (ha): 82,500 9,000

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 90 25 SAC (ha): 10,200 <50 SPA (ha): 10,400 <50 RAMSAR site (ha): 50 <50 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 10,950 100 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2,600 100 SAMs (ha): 300 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 3,630 230 No of Licensed water abstractions: 280 100

110

Figure 35: Flooding from reservoirs: Don and Rother management catchment

111

Partnership working Within the Don and Rother management catchment the following RMAs work closely together to identify, plan and deliver flood risk and coastal erosion projects and particularly local flood risks in our day-to-day work and formally through the South Yorkshire Flood Risk Partnership (and others) and the RFCCs:  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council Council  Derbyshire County Council  North Yorkshire County Council  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Council  East Riding of Yorkshire Council  Sheffield City Council  Environment Agency  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council In addition we also work closely with Yorkshire Water, Natural England and IDBs within the Don and Rother management catchment. The IDBs within the catchment are Knottingley to Gowdall, Rawcliffe, Dun, Tween Bridge, Lower Ouse, Went, Dearne and Dove, Selby Area, Reedness and Swinefleet, Cowick, Thorntree, Goole and Airmyn, Black Drain, Dempster, Danvm, Doncaster East and Selby Area. We are working with RMAs and other organisations on a number of issues including development of schemes, community engagement and awareness, establishing flood warden networks and voluntary groups. Development of flood risk management schemes One example of partnership working between multiple partners is the Sheffield Lower Don Valley FAS. Sheffield’s Lower Don Valley s a dense employment area and has been identified as a priority in the City’s Economic Strategy and the City Centre Master Plan. The area suffered flooding in 2000 and 2007 causing significant disruption to businesses and infrastructure. The Lower Don Valley FAS, delivered partly with Defra Growth Funds, is the first such scheme in the country to use contributions from a Business Improvement District. The Business Improvement District funding provides both a capital contribution towards the new flood defence and a revenue stream for ongoing channel maintenance. Also uniquely, the channel maintenance is being delivered by a social enterprise, The River Stewardship Company. Multiple partners are working with the Business Improvement District including Sheffield City Council, Environment Agency, local businesses and communities, Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and organisations such as the River Stewardship Company. Following several recent flood events, flood recovery work has highlighted the need to repair existing assets and develop schemes to manage flood risk within the catchment. An example includes along the Humber, Ouse and Lower Don where sections of existing defences have been repaired and raised following the tidal surge in December 2013. Community engagement and raising awareness of our flood warning service has also been part of the collaborative effort on recovery work in this area. Working in partnership with LLFAs, the Environment Agency is working with Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in development of a feasibility study to assess options for managing flood risk on Kearsley Brook. We have supported the council in appointing consultants through our established Water and Environmental Management Framework of consultants and contractors. This has enabled us to share expertise and realise efficiencies in tendering work.

112

The Environment Agency works closely with Local Authorities, flood wardens and local flood action groups in developing flood awareness and explaining how the FWD and incident rooms work. A recent example is a visit to the River Dearne and River Dove in Barnsley where time was spent at each location discussing local flooding issues and history, inspecting local flood stores and understanding how assets operate within an incident. Economic sustainability The scale of development and the future pressure for development is important in the long term planning for flood risk and coastal erosion risk management. Firstly, impermeable surfaces can lead to runoff bypassing soil; increased volume of storm run-off and reduced travel times; increased flood peaks; reduced groundwater recharge and Find out more: reduced low flows. Secondly, inappropriately Information regarding LEPs covering located development can lead to an increase in this region can be found here: flood risk to those properties placed within known FRAs and also to sites downstream due  Sheffield City Region LEP: to increased runoff. It is vitally important to http://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/ recognise the need for development and regeneration to allow sustainable economic growth to take place; this is supported by national and local planning policy. Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) works to bring investment to the Sheffield City Region to support economic growth and job creation in the Sheffield City Region. Conclusions and objectives for the Don and Rother catchment The Don and Rother catchment drains the edge of the Pennine Moors west of Sheffield and Chesterfield, and flows into the heavily urbanised low lying mid- catchments around Rotherham and Doncaster, and then towards Goole and the Humberhead Levels where the Don becomes tidal. The lower reaches of the catchment have been engineered over the years and include many areas of storage and washlands. The Don catchment is large, extending over 1,800km2 and has some fairly urbanised areas with a population of approximately 1.5 million. Approximately 20% of agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding. There is a rich variety of environmental and heritage sites, with a number of areas with environmental designations including 2 SACs and SPAs, 33 SSSIs and 1 NNR. The key FRAs are the large conurbations surrounding Sheffield, Doncaster and Goole. Sheffield and Doncaster areas are both at risk of flooding from the River Don and its tributaries. Goole is at risk from the tidal River Don and tidal River Ouse. In this catchment 5% of the total population, approximately 70,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The upper catchment respond quickly to periods of heavy rainfall, as the watercourses here lay within steep valleys. As such, 10 rapid response catchments have been identified. In the lower catchment, water levels can remain high for several days, as demonstrated by the floods of summer 2007. This catchment has suffered from major flooding recently in 2000, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Communities affected by these floods include Barnsley, Rotherham, Sheffield, Doncaster and areas of Derbyshire. The events in 2007 and 2014 show the split nature of flooding in the catchment; 2007 was a relatively long- lasting and widespread event and 2014 affected many rapidly-responding sub- catchments in areas such as Rotherham and Sheffield. The tidal surge in 2013 showed that catchment is vulnerable to tidal flooding in its lower reaches.

113

There are 103 reservoirs in the catchment. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 57,000 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Don and Rother management catchment, representing just 4% of the total population. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 24 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Don and Rother management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 24: Relevant objectives: Don and Rother management catchment

Reference Objective Relevant? SOC 1 Understanding Flood Risk and Working in Partnership  SOC 2 Community Preparedness and Resilience  SOC 3 Reduce Community Disruption  SOC 4 Flood Risk and Development  SOC 5 Reduce risk to people  ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  As previously noted, North Yorkshire County Council and Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council have volunteered to include their local flooding information from their LFRMS. Within these strategies the councils set out their own objectives for managing local flood risk within their administrative areas. Appendix C of the FRMP contains specific measures relevant to the Don and Rotherham management catchment (Kirklees Council actions are contained within the Aire and Calder measures). Measures across the Don and Rother catchment 95 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Don and Rother management catchment. This includes a number of measures that have been taken from existing plans and strategies that have been provided on a voluntary basis by our partners including:  Kirklees Council LFRMS x 32  North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS x 17 A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. 56 measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding, through structural

114

and non-structural action, have been identified in the Don and Rother management catchment (this includes North Yorkshire County Council and Kirklees Council measures). Three of these have come directly from LFRMS. The Protection measures can be summarised as:  The maintenance of existing assets such as culverts, river banks and river defences  The ongoing development and delivery of a prioritised programme of projects  Opportunities to incorporate flood risk measures as part of proposed environmental improvement projects. The environmental improvement projects proposed include watercourse channel improvements and habitat improvements across the catchment such as improving SSSIs  Developing protocols and processes for the recording and monitoring of assets implicated in significant local flood risk A number of high profile protection measures have been identified for delivery within the first cycle of the FRMP (2015-21) including the Avenue Flood Balancing Reservoir in Chesterfield and works to existing assets such as pumping stations and embankments along the Lower Don in Doncaster. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use A significant focus of work within the Don and Rother management catchment is the prevention of damage caused by floods. 17 measures have been identified which are associated with the further assessment of flood risk through the development of strategies, monitoring programmes and flood risk modelling. Examples of these measures include:  Programme of modelling projects to improve flood risk knowledge, improve the Environment Agency’s flood forecasting and warning service and inform future scheme development as appropriate  Production of an updated strategy using existing studies and updated information and strategies in the Don and Rother catchment that will give a direction for future flood risk  Working with LLFA, the River Stewardship Company and other partners and voluntary groups to identify projects to promote more ownership of watercourses by communities across South Yorkshire  Developing standards, guidance and processes required to implement sections of the FWMA relating to SuDs Approving Bodies  Providing input to Local Development Plans and planning consultations.  Recording of Drainage and Flood Assets and carrying out flood investigations  Implementing a responsive, reactive maintenance regime based on flood risk Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood 19 measures have been identified that deliver preparedness, the majority of which relate to improving the flood forecasting and warning service, increasing public awareness so they know what to do in the event of flooding and developing plans with all RMAs for incident response and recovery. There are a number of existing community warden schemes and community flood plans in place throughout the Don and Rother catchment. The Environment Agency and other RMAs are committed to continuing to work with communities to ensure they feel prepared for flooding and where required, support the development of

115

warden schemes or flood plans to improve their existing levels of preparedness. In particular, some measures have been identified for engagement campaigns within Rapid Response Catchments to raise the awareness of the dangers of flash flooding and where possible encourage the development of personal flood plans. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population 3 measures associated with recovery and review have been identified by North Yorkshire County Council and Kirklees Council through their LFRMS. These measures are associated with their statutory duty, under Section 19 of the FWMA, to assess and investigate flooding incidents with their authority areas. The Environment Agency will continue to work with all RMAs on recovery and review of flooding incidents and incorporate information into our plans for managing flood risk.

116

3.5. The Dove management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The River Dove rises on Axe Edge, to the south of Buxton in the north of the management catchment and flows generally south-eastwards to its confluence with the River Trent north of Burton upon Trent. The largest town is Leek and other urban centres include Cheadle, Ashbourne, Uttoxeter, Hilton and Tutbury. It drains an area of approximately 1,020km2 of north Staffordshire and west Derbyshire. The Dove catchment also incorporates the Rivers Churnet, Tean, Manifold and Hamps, together with the Hilton, Henmore, Marchington and Rolleston Brooks. Parts of the upper catchments run through the Peak District National Park, whereas the lower reaches run through the more populated areas of South Derbyshire and East Staffordshire, before the confluence with the River Trent. Downstream of Ashbourne and Uttoxeter the River Dove broadens out to become more of a lowland river meandering across a much wider and flatter floodplain before it joins the River Trent just downstream of Burton upon Trent. The River Dove forms the boundary between Derbyshire and Staffordshire flowing from the southern Peak District to join the River Trent downstream of Burton upon Trent. The management catchment is bordered by four others in the Humber RBD – Trent Valley Staffordshire, Tame, Anker and Mease, Lower Trent and Erewash and Derwent Derbyshire. It is also bordered by one other in the North West RBD – Weaver Gowy. Topography The River Dove rises high in the Peak District and falls rapidly losing approximately 400m within the first 50km. The Dove very quickly levels out once it leaves the Peak District. To the north the catchment’s topography is dominated by the southern extremity of the Pennines. To the east, the River Churnet flows southwards towards its confluence with the River Dove near Rocester. The Churnet valley is well wooded and its upland valleys, along with those of the Dove, tend to be narrow and deep. The lower reaches of the River Dove meander across a wide floodplain. Downstream of Ashbourne and Uttoxeter the River Dove broadens out to become more of a lowland meandering river before it joins the River Trent just downstream of Burton upon Trent. The narrow valleys in the uplands mean that settlements tend to be concentrated near rivers. Rapid run-off from the Peak District and Staffordshire Moors results in the sudden onset of flooding in downstream towns and villages. Bridges and other constrictions along the watercourses tend to make the flooding within the towns and villages worse. In the downstream reaches of the River Dove there are wider floodplains with established flood defences reducing flood risk to the settlements adjacent to the river.

117

Figure 36: Overview map of the Dove management catchment

118

Geology and soils The higher ground in this management catchment is characterised by millstone grit and carboniferous limestone. This area of the Peak District National Park is known as the 'White Peak' due to the underlying carboniferous limestone which forms the majority of the geology of the lower parts of the Peak District. Triassic mudstones dominate the geology in the lower parts of the management catchment and being relatively soft these have been eroded to form wider and flatter valleys. Geology has a very strong influence on how a catchment responds to rainfall. The degree to which material allows water to percolate through it influences the extent of overland flow and therefore how a watercourse responds to rainfall. Whist the limestone and sandstone in the upland areas are more permeable; the steep slope can dominate and promote rapid surface runoff. Much of the catchment management area is underlain by loamy soils which are moderately well drained but in the lower lying parts of the catchment can be seasonally waterlogged. The catchment runoff can therefore be quite variable and when waterlogged will result in a rapid response with high runoff rates. Peaty soils are generally found in the upland areas where rainfall is high. These soils retain moisture for long periods and when saturated result in long periods of standing water and localised flooding. Land use and land management The land use in this management catchment is predominately agricultural. In the upper stretches of most of the rivers, the principal land use is extensive beef and sheep farming, with some dairy enterprises remaining, mainly in the upper Dove. Moving downstream, dairy farming becomes more widespread. In the lower reaches south of Ashbourne, arable farming is the prevalent land use, with some dairy units and beef enterprises. The upland area is well populated by small towns and villages such as, Ashbourne, Leek, Rocester and Cheddleton. The lower sections have larger mixed use residential and commercial settlements such as Uttoxeter, Hatton and Tutbury and major transport routes, such as the Derby to Stoke railway line, the A38 and A50 trunk roads. The large industrial town of Burton upon Trent is situated at the confluence of the River Dove and River Trent. Although the River Dove does not directly impact the centre of Burton upon Trent, it can affect access to the town from the residential areas to the north and west. In the upper reaches of the 'White Peak', carboniferous limestone is quarried for use in the aggregates and cement industry. Hydrology The River Dove rises on Axe Edge Moor high up in the White Peak area of the Peak District near Buxton. It flows generally southward, forming the county boundary between Derbyshire and Staffordshire for much of its length, to join the River Trent immediately downstream of Burton upon Trent. It rises at an elevation of more than 400mAOD and here annual rainfall can exceed 1200mm. Despite the high rainfall and steep slopes of the River Dove headwaters, the area is well drained by the moderately permeable carboniferous limestone geology. However, following long periods of wet weather, the catchment has the potential to respond very rapidly to rainfall. The River Manifold flows into the River Dove at Thorpe downstream of Dovedale. It has a number of reaches where, during dry periods, it flows underground through limestone tunnels.

119

Downstream of the Manifold confluence, the channel of the River Dove rapidly widens and flattens, slowing the river runoff response. A short distance downstream it is joined by the Henmore Brook which drains the eastern part of the Catchment through Ashbourne. Flows from this catchment are strongly attenuated by Carsington Water reservoir in its headwaters, although the influence further downstream is negligible and Ashbourne remains susceptible to flooding. Downstream of the confluence, the Dove turns southwest and is joined by the forested valley of the River Churnet at Rocester and the River Tean a short distance downstream at Uttoxeter. Flows in the River Churnet catchment tend to be high due to waterlogged peat soils in the headwaters, steep slopes and high rainfall. Although flows are attenuated by reservoirs in the upper reaches at Tittesworth and Rudyard, this has a negligible impact on flows further downstream, where flooding remains a problem at nearby Leek. Run-off rates have increased significantly as a result of the artificial drainage of upland peat areas. In the lower reaches of the catchment, the Dove flows into the Trent valley where the catchment is characterised by alluvial lowlands used for agriculture. Flooding is a problem in this reach, particularly at Marchington, Aston Bridge, Scropton, Hatton, Rolleston-on-Dove and Egginton owing to soils which are prone to water logging and the low-lying topography. The natural environment The Dove management catchment has a number of notable environmental features including the Churnet Valley SSSI comprising the steep sided main valley of the Churnet and a number of tributaries. The valleys contain semi natural woodland, scrub, acid grassland, mire, marsh and carr. Flooding at the site has been historically important and will be beneficial to any wetland area developing. The Peak District National Park is a major designated landscape and the South West Peak and North Peak are designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Sections of the Rivers Dove, Hamps and Manifold, along with the Hoo Brook in Butterton, form part of the Peak District Dales and Woodlands SAC and are designated for populations of white-clawed crayfish, bullhead and lamprey. The upper Dove is an important area of ecological interest including extensive ancient semi-natural woodlands, grasslands and aquatic communities. The River Dove through Dovedale and sections of the Rivers Hamps and Manifold, form part of the Peak District Dales SAC. The Leek Moor forms part of the South Pennine Moors Special SPA. The River Dove contains some of the best game fishing in the country in the headwaters and middle reaches. The management catchment is vital to the Trent Salmon Restoration Project, providing spawning and juvenile habitat that sustain the run of adult fish in the Trent catchment. The historic environment There are no world heritage sites or designated battlefields located within the Dove management catchment. There are a large number of SAMs throughout the catchment as well as three Registered Parks and Gardens including Alton Towers and Sudbury Hall. In addition, there are a large number of Listed Buildings and conservation areas within the management catchment. As with other environmental designations, these will be taken into account when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding

120

Rapid runoff from the Peak District and Staffordshire moors results in the rapid onset of flooding in downstream towns and villages. The upland valleys are relatively narrow and settlements tend to be concentrated near the rivers. Bridges and other constrictions tend to make the flooding within the towns and villages worse. Throughout the rural areas of the catchment there are many local defences originally constructed to reduce flooding to agricultural land. Landowners have chosen to maintain these themselves in some instances, including walls and embankments, around settlements. Some isolated farms have their own earth bank defences. The lower Dove has a long history of flooding. There are many formal and informal flood defences which were first built in the 1960s and have been improved at various locations throughout the years to protect localised areas. The majority of these defences are currently predicted to provide protection from a flood with between 2% and 1% annual probability of occurring in any one year. There are a number of major manufacturers which are at risk of flooding, although they are protected by flood defences. Major transport routes, such as the Derby to Stoke railway line, the A38 and A50 trunk roads, have previously been disrupted by flooding, either directly or by flooding of roads providing access to them. In autumn 2000, flooding occurred in a number of locations and villages along the lower Dove, including Aston Bridge, Scropton, Hatton and Egginton. Over 180 properties in Hatton alone were flooded during the 2000 flood event which is estimated to have been a 2% annual probability event. Other notable events also occurred in 1960, 1991, 1995 and 1998. There have been significant new flood defences constructed in Ashbourne, Scropton, Hatton and Egginton reducing flood risk to more than 2,000 properties. However large numbers of properties do remain at flood risk. The flood alleviation scheme in Egginton was an Environment Agency-led scheme which was developed with and supported by local stakeholders. It raised and extended existing defences along the River Dove, reducing the flood risk in the villages of Egginton, Hatton and Scropton. Third party contributions of £2.2million reduced the public funding cost of this scheme. It was completed in 2013 and has reduced flood risk to more than 2,000 residential properties including major commercial operations. The scheme provided 5km of new and improved defences and consisted of new embankments, flood walls, road raising and scour protection to a railway embankment. Nestlé, which operates a site in Hatton, are a major beneficiary and they contributed £1.9 million towards the scheme. The work to reduce the risk of flooding has enabled Nestlé to expand its site and create around 400 jobs for local people. Members of the local community also did their bit, with collections over the years amounting to more than £25,000. The scheme also helped to achieve WFD objectives by providing improved recreational access and assisted fish passage to support salmon stocks. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers In this management catchment there are approximately 8,200 people at risk from river flooding, representing approximately 6% of the total population. Nearly 2,200 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers of which 469 are considered to be high risk. Approximately 8% of agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding with 1200ha being at high risk.

121

Locations which have people and properties that may be exposed to relatively frequent flooding from deep, fast flowing water include Ashbourne, Leek and Cheddleton. The Leek Brook in Cheddleton is classed as a ‘Rapid Response Catchment’. Other communities at risk from less frequent flooding include Rocester, Uttoxeter and Cheadle. Table 25: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Dove management catchment

Total in High Mediu Low Very management risk m risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 129,650 450 1,800 5,950 <50 No of services: 450 30 10 10 0

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 34,850 450 600 1,100 <50 No of airports: 0 - - - - Roads (km): 210 <10 <10 10 0 Railway (km): 40 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 34,400 1,200 550 900 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 21 3 3 0 0 50m: SAC (ha): 2,150 <50 <50 <50 0 SPA (ha): 1,850 <50 <50 <50 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 4,750 100 <50 <50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 400 <50 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 200 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,450 90 40 50 0 No of Licensed water 130 30 20 <10 0 abstractions:

122

Figure 37: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Dove management catchment

123

Flooding from local sources Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. Surface water and sewer flooding affect the catchment. The Flood Maps for Surface Water Flooding show many areas at risk across the catchment. More details about risks, objectives and measures associated with these risks will be included in LFRMS being produced by Staffordshire and Derbyshire LLFAs. There are no historic records of property flooding from groundwater sources in the catchment.

Figure 38: Flooding from surface water: Dove management catchment

124

Flooding from reservoirs The Dove catchment is potentially subject to flooding from 12 large raised reservoirs, not all of which are actually within the catchment, but it may be impacted from them. The reservoirs are used for water supply, irrigation, boating and flood storage. The reservoirs are:  Carsington  Rudyard  Blithfield  Hales Hall Pool  Tittesworth  Ashbourne Flood Storage  Ladderedge Reservoir  Osmaston Farm Lake  Osmaston Manor Lake  Sudbury Lake  Stanley  Brookleys Lake A flood storage reservoir was constructed as part of the flood defences that protect Scropton, Hatton and Egginton. The area is used as agricultural land in normal circumstances, but will store flood water between Sudbury and Scropton in extreme flood events. There are nearly 14,000 people at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Dove catchment, representing approximately 10% of the total population. Around 2,800 non-residential properties are also at risk as well as approximately 2,400ha of agricultural land. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 26: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Dove management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 129,650 13,950 No of services: 450 50

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 34,850 2,800 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 210 20 Railway (km): 40 30 Agricultural land (ha): 34,400 2,350

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 0 0 50m: No of EPR installations within 50m: 21 5 SAC (ha): 2,150 0 SPA (ha): 1,850 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 0 SSSI (ha): 4,750 <50 Parks and Gardens (ha): 400 <50 SAMs (ha): 200 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 2,450 280 No of Licensed water abstractions: 130 40

125

Figure 39: Flooding from reservoirs: Dove management catchment

126

Partnership working Within the management catchment, RMAs have developed good working relationships with each other and other interested parties. Severn Trent Water is the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within the Dove catchment. Partnership projects with Staffordshire County Council are in development at Marchington and Rolleston on Dove to reduce the risk of flooding. Conclusions and objectives for the Dove catchment The Dove management catchment area is predominately rural and covers an area of approximately 1,020km2. It has a long history of flooding with approximately 8,200 people at risk of flooding from rivers, representing around 6% of the total population. Approximately 8% of the agricultural land within the catchment is also at risk. There are distinct differences between the upstream and downstream parts of the catchment requiring different approaches to managing flood risk. The upstream part, including the upper Dove and its tributaries such as the Hamps, Manifold and Churnet is subject to a rapid onset of flooding with deep and fast flowing water. Bridges and other constrictions associated with the riverside settlements can make the flooding worse. Whilst this causes a danger to life, the relatively small number of people at risk means that improved flood forecasting, warning and preparedness are most likely to be viable options for reducing flood risk. Locations which can be affected by deep, fast flowing water include Ashbourne, Leek and Cheddleton. The Leek Brook in Cheddleton has been identified as a rapid response catchment. Where traditional flood schemes are not viable, opportunities are being sought to identify potential locations where flood risk could be reduced through adopting natural flood management measures such as planting of trees in the upland areas to intercept rainfall and reduce runoff. In the lower catchment, downstream of Rocester, floodplains are wider and formal flood defences have been constructed to protect properties. In this part of the catchment ensuring the existing defences are properly maintained is key to managing flood risk. In autumn 2000, flooding badly affected a number of communities along the lower Dove. Since then new defences have been constructed which have reduced flood risk to more than 2,000 properties in Scropton, Hatton and Egginton. There are 12 large raised reservoirs in the Dove Management catchment with 10% of the population living within the maximum extent of flooding. Reservoir maintenance as well as training and exercising for any incidents should be continued. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Partnership working by the Environment Agency, LLFAs, other RMAs, affected communities and developers will be vital in order to deliver cost effective and environmentally acceptable solutions for managing flood risk across the Dove management catchment. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 27 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Dove management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information.

127

Table 27: Relevant objectives: Dove management catchment

Reference Objective Relevant? SOC 1 Understanding Flood Risk and Working in Partnership  SOC 2 Community Preparedness and Resilience  SOC 3 Reduce Community Disruption  SOC 4 Flood Risk and Development  SOC 5 Reduce risk to people  ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  Measures across the Dove catchment A total of 35 measures have been identified to manage flood risk across the Dove management catchment. A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The measures are described more fully in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be carried out in many cases and will be subject to availability of funding. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. Nine measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding have been identified in the Dove management catchment. A number of the measures have been identified to investigate and implement solutions for reducing flood risk. Examples of these include:  Investigate potential collaborative scheme to attenuate flood flows at Marchington  Investigate and implement potential solutions to reduce the flood risk from surface water at Rolleston on Dove Other measures are associated with the maintenance and improvement of existing defences in the catchment. One measure relates to seeking opportunities and identifying potential locations where flood risk could be reduced through adopting natural flood management measures. This could include planting trees in upland areas to intercept rainfall and reduce runoff. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use 17 measures have been identified which will prevent flood damage, of which 12 measures are associated with preventing inappropriate development in floodplains and reducing runoff through the planning process. There are also three measures seeking to reduce existing flood risk through the planning process. Examples of these include:

128

 Working with local council planners to ensure no inappropriate development on floodplains  Identifying sites where developer contributions could be used to fund future flood risk management schemes or can reduce risk for surrounding areas  Development proposals incorporating measures for de-culverting and re- naturalisation of watercourses where practicable Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood Eight measures have been identified that will deliver preparedness. These include two measures which relate to maintaining and improving the accuracy of flood forecasting and warnings as well as expanding the service where feasible. Two measures aim to promote a better understanding of flood risk and to develop action plans in rapid response catchments. There are also three measures related to carrying out new or improving existing modelling to better understand flood risk in the catchment. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population One measure has been identified which aims to secure wider environmental benefits when flood management schemes are proposed.

129

3.6. The Esk and Coast management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Esk and Coast catchment is located in the North East of England and covers an area of approximately 512km2 with a population of approximately 53,000. It is unique in that it has the only major river in the county of Yorkshire that drains directly into the North Sea. The area is dominated by moorland and agriculture with a small number of settlements scattered throughout. The main town is Whitby. There are 41km of main rivers in the catchment including the River Esk itself. The catchment is considered environmentally rich, containing a number of important designated sites and a high quality river system. The catchment is bordered by two others in the Yorkshire and North East Region, the Tees to the north and the Derwent Humber to the south and west. On the coast the catchment is bordered by the North East SMP that stretches from the Tyne to Flamborough Head (SMP2). Topography The headwaters of the River Esk are located in Westerdale in the Cleveland Hills at an altitude of between 300m and 400mAOD. This area, as well as the southern boundaries of the catchment, is characterised by steep valley sides. The northern and eastern area lies at a much lower altitude as the catchment reaches the coastal plain of the North Sea. Geology and soils The underlying geology of the catchment area is of Jurassic age. These early Jurassic rocks are exposed along much of the North Yorkshire coastline and form the characteristic sea cliffs of the area. The younger formation is the mid-Jurassic Ravenscar Group. This is made up of alternating layers of shale, sandstone and limestone. This formation produces the characteristic moorland scenery and acidic soils of North Yorkshire. Areas of peat lie over the southern extent of the catchment. Solid rock or peat deposits are relatively impermeable, and generate more surface runoff. Below the surface, the Ravenscar Group form minor aquifers (rocks that hold water) across the catchment area. The River Esk and a number of the larger becks have alluvial material deposited along their beds and banks, lying over glacial deposits. The steepness of the valley sides and the watercourse beds has limited the extent of these alluvium deposits, and they are generally confined to a narrow corridor. Sand and gravel deposits are also present along the northern side of the catchment and within the headwaters of the northern coastal streams. In the northern coastal streams area there are disused ironstone mine workings that have become flooded. These disused mines are thought to discharge iron oxides into the becks (such as Kilton Beck in the Tees management catchment), and are thought to have some impact on how floods are generated in the coastal stream catchments. The catchment has a wide range of soil types because of the underlying geology and environmental conditions. The majority of the upland areas of the River Esk contain slowly draining acidic loamy soils, with a peaty surface due to the topography and the underlying geology. These soils are naturally wet and retain a large amount of water, which is released slowly. There are also a number of areas of blanket bog and raised bog peat soils, which are similar in how they retain and release water. In the valley areas there are mainly loamy and clayey soils, many of which are naturally slightly

130

acidic. These soils are slowly permeable or are of restricted drainage due to their clayey nature, and they add to increased runoff during periods of heavy rainfall.

131

Figure 40: Overview map of the Esk and Coast management catchment

132

Land use and land management The majority of the catchment area (approx 240km2), particularly in the south and west, is Grade 5 agricultural land (very poor), due to acidic moorland soils, the fact that land is exposed, and the steepness of some of the valley sides. This type of land is found in the western upper reaches of the catchment and is mainly moorland, used for grouse shooting and sheep grazing. There is no grade 1 agricultural land (excellent) in the catchment. Grade 3 agricultural land (good) is found in a 5-7km wide strip along the coast (approx 108km2), which corresponds to the flatter, more low-lying terrain, and the overlying glacial till geology. The remaining land along the floodplain of the River Esk valley is grade 4 agricultural land (poor) (approx 135km2), except one area of grade 3 land in the upper reaches, where there is a wider floodplain around Lealholm. Urban areas only account for 1% of the land area, and are located mainly on the coastline. Small rural communities are scattered through the catchment whilst the largest town, Whitby is located prominently on the coast at the mouth of the River Esk. As most people live on the coast at the lower end of river catchments, urbanisation has a limited effect on the river and stream systems. Hydrology Rainfall distribution throughout the Esk and Coast management catchment is dominated by the region’s topography. The Pennine Hills in the centre of northern England present a barrier to passing weather systems. This barrier forces the system up and over the hills. The effect this has is to create a shadow effect on the eastern side of the hills, resulting in a lower annual rainfall total in eastern England compared with areas to the west of the Pennines. As a result of this, rainfall totals are higher in the upland areas of the Esk and Coast management catchment area. Annual average rainfall varies from 1,000mm or more in the south west of the catchment to less than 600mm in the coastal, northern areas. This compares to an average annual rainfall for England and Wales of 920mm. The highest average annual rainfall is over the high ground of the North York Moors northern escarpment, this is where the headwaters of the Esk are and where the majority of high flows are generated. The higher elevation of the North York Moors also makes the atmosphere unstable due to changes in the heat of the land surface. This can result in the formation of convective thunderstorms, typically intense, localised rain that lasts for a short time. Instability can also happen when moist air from the North Sea converges with air masses over the land. As the management catchment is close to the sea, this increases the available moisture in the atmosphere and results in heavy rainfall during certain atmospheric conditions. The three major tributaries of the River Esk are Sleddale and Baysdale Beck which join the river at Castleton, and the Murk Esk, which rises on Egton, Wheeldale, Goathland and Pickering Moors and joins the river at Grosmont. In addition, the Esk is supported by a number of minor tributaries. The natural environment The management catchment has a number of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes.

133

A single SPA and four SACs are located within the Esk catchment. The principal site is the North York Moors, which covers a large upland moorland area and includes many of the headwaters of the River Esk’s tributaries and is both a SAC and SPA. The site is important due to heath and scrub vegetation which provide suitable habitat for breeding merlin and golden plover as well as boulder clay coastal cliffs and sessile oak woods to bogs, marshes, moor and heath. Arncliffe and Park Hole Woods, Fen bogs and Beast Cliff at Whitby are SACs situated within the Esk Catchment and have been included for their intrinsic value for biodiversity. As well as this, there are 25 SSSIs covering an area of 207km2. These SSSIs include a wide variety of different habitats and geological features but upland moorland forms the most significant area of designated habitat in the catchment. Species regarded as particularly important that are associated with the moorland include merlin and golden plover. The majority of the management catchment area is also designated as an Important Bird Area by the RSPB. This important bird area supports a variety of breeding upland species, and is also nationally important for breeding curlew. The historic environment There are no world heritage sites or designated battlefields located within the Esk and Coast management catchment. There are however 138 SAMs as well as two Registered Parks and Gardens: Whitby Abbey House and Mulgrave Castle. As well as these, there are 1,348 Listed Buildings and 13 conservation areas in the Esk and Coast management catchment. These range from small rural areas to sections of large towns. As per local environmental designations, we as risk management authorities recognise their importance however they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding There is a history of river flooding affecting rural communities within the Esk and Coast management catchment. Locations frequently flooded include Lealholm where around 40 properties are at risk and Ruswarp (approximately 70 properties). The most significant fluvial sourced flood occurred in autumn 2000 when low lying properties in Lealholm, and Ruswarp were flooded, in some places to a depth of 0.3m, and local roads including the B1410 were affected. Egton Bridge was affected by flooding during this period with a small number properties and the main road experiencing inundation. Sleights is known to experience flooding from combined sources during high water levels on the River Esk. More recently, Ruswarp was reported as experiencing some flooding to properties during the 2007 summer storm event. On the 5th December 2013 a large tidal surge moved around the UK coastline. The surge coincided with high spring tides on the afternoon of 5th December, resulting in record water levels along our coast (4.32m at Whitby) and tidal rivers. A large number of properties were flooded. For the Esk and Coast catchment 129 properties were flooded compared to 688 in total affecting 18 communities. Properties in Whitby were evacuated on the 5th December. One severe flood warning and two flood warnings were issued. Approximately 80 residential properties and 35 commercial properties were flooded. Other towns which experienced flooding to properties included Ruswarp, Staithes and Sandsend. The River Esk and Coast management catchment have been relatively unaltered by historical flood defence works due to the rural nature of the catchment, with small villages scattered along the river corridor. This is with the exception of Whitby which

134

is located at the confluence of the Esk with the North Sea. Current flood risk activity undertaken in the Esk catchment by the Environment Agency is minimal and includes ad-hoc tree maintenance work and timber blockage removal. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea Isolated roads and properties may be at risk along the valley, with the main problems being Lealholm, Ruswarp and Whitby. Analysis demonstrates that there are a few communities within the Esk and Coast management catchment where the extent of flooding is significant. There are 1,175 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Esk and Coast management catchment, representing approximately 4% of the total population. Approximately 350 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding, of which 119 are at high risk. Around 3% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with 216ha being at high risk. Much of the population is located in coastal areas, particularly the coastal streams section of the catchment. The tidal limit of the Esk is at Ruswarp Weir. Some of the smaller coastal streams may be subject to tide-locking and are at risk of flooding when a high tide and large fluvial flood combine. For details relating to the risks and management of flooding from the North Sea coast please refer to the North East SMP the Tyne to Flamborough Head (SMP2).

135

Figure 41: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Esk and Coast management catchment

136

Table 28: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Esk and Coast management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 32,800 350 100 750 0 No of services: 120 <10 0 <10 0 Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 9,700 100 <50 200 0 No of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 40 0 0 0 0 Railway (km): 30 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 10,800 200 50 100 0

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters 3 3 0 0 0 within 50m: No of EPR installations within 50m: 1 0 0 0 0 SAC (ha): 19,550 <50 <50 <50 0 SPA (ha): 19,350 <50 <50 <50 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 0 0 0 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 0 0 0 0 SSSI (ha): 19,850 50 <50 <50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 400 <50 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 350 <50 0 0 0 No of Listed Buildings: 1,350 50 <10 50 0 No of Licensed water abstractions: 40 <10 <10 0 0

Flooding from local sources Flooding from ordinary watercourse, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. In preparing the Humber FRMP North Yorkshire County Council have included their local information regarding these sources of flooding – as further defined in their published LFRMS. As illustrated in Figure 42, a large area of the catchment is affected by surface water flooding. These risks are taken into account in the relevant LFRMS and also represented within SFRAs. SFRAs assess the different levels of flood risk in a local authority area and map these to assist with statutory land use planning. They provide concise information on flood risk issues, which assist planning officers in the preparation of the Local Plans and in the assessment of future planning applications. The relevant SFRAs for the Esk and Coast management catchment can be viewed at:  Redcar and Cleveland SFRA Level 1 and Level 2 2010: Redcar and Cleveland SFRA Level 1 and 2  The North East Yorkshire SFRA (2006) which covers Ryedale District Council, Scarborough Borough Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority: North East Yorkshire SFRA (2006) Together the LFRMS and SFRAs provide a comprehensive assessment of local flood risk within the Esk and Coast management catchment.

137

Figure 42: Flooding from surface water: Esk and coast management catchment

138

A very small area of Redcar and Cleveland LLFA falls within the Esk and Coast management catchment. Flood risk within this area is negligible. The flood risk pages for Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council can be viewed here: Flooding advice and information Flooding from reservoirs There are two main reservoirs in the catchment, Scaling and Randymere used for water supply, storage and recreational purposes. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that approximately 150 people are at risk from flooding representing just 0.4% of the total population. Over 100 non-residential properties are at risk as well as 15ha of agricultural land. Four hectares of SSSI fall within the maximum flood extent as well as nine Listed Buildings. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 29: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Esk and Coast management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 32,800 150 No of services: 120 0

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 9,700 100 No of airports: 0 0 Roads (km): 40 <10 Railway (km): 30 0 Agricultural land (ha): 10,800 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment o N of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 3 1 No of EPR installations within 50m: 1 0 SAC (ha): 19,550 0 SPA (ha): 19,350 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 0 SSSI (ha): 19,850 <50 Parks and Gardens (ha): 400 0 SAMs (ha): 350 0 No of Listed Buildings: 1,350 10 No of Licensed water abstractions: 40 <10

139

Figure 43: Flooding from reservoirs: Esk and Coast management catchment

140

Coastal erosion Coastal erosion is an issue along the coastal section of the Esk and Coast management catchment. The section of coastline known as the National Park and Heritage Coast and includes the small settlements of Cowbar, Staithes, Port Mulgrave and Runswick Bay is eroding. At Runswick Bay erosion rates are 0.2m per year, compared with 0.025m per year at Cowbar. At Runswick waves from the north east scour the defended frontage which has a direct impact on the slumping coastal slope to the south of the main village. To the south of Runswick Bay at Sandsend the high upper beach is known to periodically erode. Beach levels have dropped substantially over the last decade although currently remain relatively constant. In the absence of the main man-made control features the coast would retreat quite rapidly and at Sandsend this retreat would be back behind the line of seafront properties. There would be less significant erosion to the eastern end of Sandsend. Along Whitby frontage, in the absence of the Piers, there may be a more significant loss of beach and the coastal slopes and cliffs would cut back. In the Robin Hood’s Bay area, coastal erosion is constrained by the hard rock foreshore and rock cliff. Slow retreat on the frontage has been identified and there is the potential for landslides which are affected by drainage or lack of drainage to the coastal slope. The SMP identified a programme of works for further investigating these issues and as a result significant progress has been made with the publication of the Runswick Bay Strategy (2015), Robin Hood’s Bay Coastal Strategy (2012) and Whitby Coastal Strategy (2012). Measures associated with the SMP have been incorporated in the Humber FRMP and can be viewed in Annex 1. Relevant coastal strategies, including the SMP, can be viewed here. Partnership working As noted in Part A of the FRMP, managing flood and coastal risks, and particularly local flood risks, requires many organisations to work together in partnership. Within the Esk and Coast management catchment the following RMAs work closely together to identify, plan and deliver flood risk and coastal erosion projects in our day-to-day work and formally through the North Yorkshire Flood Risk Partnership:  North Yorkshire County Council  Environment Agency  Yorkshire Water Services  Highways Authority As well as this the Environment Agency works with Scarborough Borough Council in their role as Maritime District Authority and Local Planning Authority as well as the National Park Authority who are a planning authority. Economic sustainability The scale of development and the future pressure for development is important in the long term planning for flood risk and coastal erosion risk management. Firstly, impermeable surfaces can lead to runoff bypassing soil; increased volume of storm run-off and reduced travel times; increased flood peaks; reduced groundwater recharge and reduced low flows. Secondly, inappropriately located development can lead to an increase in flood risk to those properties placed within known FRAs and also to sites downstream due to increased runoff. It is vitally important to recognise the need for development and regeneration to allow sustainable economic growth to take place; this is supported by national and local planning policy. There is limited pressure for development and regeneration within the Esk and Coast management catchment. The York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership have been allocated €110m from the EU Structural and Investment Fund through the LEP. The partnership predicts that investment which promotes business

141

to grow, enlarge the local agritech and renewable energy sector, improve the transport infrastructure and unlock land for residential developments could result in up to £3bn of further economic growth across the region. Find out more: Although this development is focussed outside of the Esk Information regarding LEPs can be found here: and Coast management  York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEP: catchment, a development of http://www.businessinspiredgrowth.com/ high significance to the region  Humber LEP: http://www.humberlep.org/ is the Whitby Potash mine, which is touted to generate £1bn of exports once operational. As well as this it is recognised that coastal areas present some of the greatest regeneration needs within the LEP area, particularly given coastal risks such as erosion and flooding. Conclusions and objectives for the Esk and Coast catchment The Esk and Coast management catchment is approximately 650km2 with a population of approximately 100,000. The headwaters of the catchment are sparsely populated, with most settlements being concentrated within the Esk valley, including Castleton, Lealholm, Glaisdale and Grosmont. However, most of the population is concentrated in the coastal areas such as Whitby, Staithes and Skelton. Only one town has a population of over 8,000 permanent residents which is Whitby. The Esk catchment is characterised by steep valley sides to the west with a narrow coastal plain at lower altitudes where it meets the North Sea. Rainfall totals are higher in the upland areas of the Esk and Coast management catchment area due to the high ground forcing weather systems to rise and precipitate over the moors. The valley area contains loamy and clayey soils. These soils have limited permeability and therefore offer limited drainage resistance, which in turn increases runoff rates during periods of heavy rainfall. Sea flooding primarily affects Whitby, particularly in the vicinity of Church Street during high tides associated with storms. The River Esk is tidal as far as Ruswarp. Surface water flooding can occur within the urban areas along the River Esk and some of its tributaries when the river is tide locked during high tides. The management catchment has a number of environmental designations including one SPA, four SACs, and 25 named SSSIs. The management catchment has a history of flooding most recently in 1999, 2000 (July and October/November), 2001, 2002, 2005, 2007 and 2013. Communities affected by these floods include Sleights, Lealholm, Ruswarp, Whitby, Guisborough and Egton Bridge. There are 1,175 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, representing 4% of the total population. Around 3% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with 216ha being at high risk. The Esk catchment suffers from relatively high rates of coastal erosion in the vicinity of Runswick Bay. Sandsend has suffered from a significant reduction in beach sediment over the last decade, control structures are now maintaining beach levels in balance. Coastal erosion and poor drainage could cause problems in the vicinity of Robin Hoods Bay, where landslips may become an issue for this area. A total of 2 SMPs have been produced which aim to resolve and manage the risk posed by coastal erosion within this catchment.

142

Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 30 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Esk and Coast management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 30: Relevant objectives: Esk and Coast management catchment

Figure 44: LFRMS objectives relevant to the Esk and Coast management catchment

143

Measures across the Esk and Coast catchment 79 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Esk and Coast management catchment. This includes a number of measures that have been taken from existing plans and strategies that have been provided on a voluntary basis by our partners including:  North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS x 17  River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP x 8  Robin Hood’s Bay Coastal Strategy (2012) x 6  Whitby Coastal Strategy (2012) x 32 A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. Protection from flooding is a significant area of focus within the Esk and Coast management catchment with 40 measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding, through structural and non structural action, identified within this plan. The majority of these (31) are actions from the Whitby Strategy 2 (2012). These actions mainly consist of:  The maintenance and / or refurbishment of existing assets e.g. floodgates, floodwalls and slopes etc.  Replacement of existing assets or construction of new assets to reduce the risk of coastal flooding and erosion as well as sea/tidal flooding e.g. walls, revetments and outflanking works.  Installing warning signs and barriers to raise public awareness of risk and to prevent access during overtopping. 10 of the Whitby Coastal Strategy (2012) actions are deemed critical. These include protecting the A174 and slope stabilisation; capital FAS (floodwalls and floodgates) and installing individual property protection to reduce the risk of tidal flooding. One action came from the NECAG SMP2 (2007) which is a potential scheme to improve flood risk and coastal erosion to Staithes Harbour. Proposals from the Robin Hoods Bay Strategy (2012) include property roll back and a drainage scheme both in the northern village and a capital improvement scheme, deemed critical, to the main sea wall in Robin Hoods Bay to protect 44 properties from the implications of coastal erosion. The 3 remaining actions from the North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS (2015) include maintaining a prioritised programme of FAS in the context of the RFCC MTP. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptors in flood- prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use 26 measures associated with the prevention of damage caused by floods have been identified in the Esk and Coast management catchment. Just under half of these involve reviewing, aligning and updating existing strategies such as the Runswick Bay Coastal Defence Strategy, Staithes Harbour Study 2 (2002), Robin Hoods Bay Coastal Strategy and River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 whilst updating the Humber FRMP accordingly to provide a more co-ordinated approach.

144

Negotiating the retreat of the Cleveland Way is included in both the Whitby Strategy 2 (2012) and the NECAG SMP2 (2007). Other schemes include:  Strategy study examining flood risk within Whitby Harbour.  Scheme appraisal for defence of Runswick Bay.  Investigation on slope stability and dependency on harbour area at Port Mulgrave.  Developing an adaptive management strategy as part of adaptation involving ‘roll-back’ at Robin Hoods Bay. Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood There are 10 actions involving preparedness. Two thirds of which come from the North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS (2015). These actions mainly involve developing existing or creating new systems, plans and information to help communities, educational facilities and organisations be more aware of the risks and be better prepared. They include:  Creating/providing input to Catchment Plans to provide a high level assessment of flood risk and potential risk management actions.  Improving and maintaining LLFA Flood Risk Management web pages.  Development and rollout of Flood Risk Management Toolkit.  Provide support and updates to LRF Response Plans.  Develop a pilot monitoring and warning system for groundwater flood risk. The Environment Agency will determine the feasibility of developing flood forecasts for the River Esk at Lealholm and Ruswarp and work with North Yorkshire County Council, Town/parish councils and communities to:  Carry out engagement campaigns and encourage development of personal/community flood plans  Work towards gaining registration to FWD with an aspiration of gaining 80% full registration Work with the Whitby community to ensure existing community flood plans and flood warden schemes are up to date and communicated with those affected. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population The three measures associated with recovery and review have all come from the North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS and involve developing and embedding clear protocols and processes for the assessment and investigation of flooding incidents with the authority plus refining data capture protocols and processes for capture and strategic analysis of flood incident data.

145

3.7. The Hull and East Riding management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Hull and East Riding management catchment lies in East Yorkshire with the southern limit delineated by the River Humber. Covering an area of approximately 2,226km2 the catchment includes 65 main rivers that are approximately 331km in combined length. These rivers include the River Hull, Foulness, Fleet Drain, Gypsey Race and Driffield Beck. The management catchment is bordered by three others in the Yorkshire and North East Region, the Derwent Humber, Wharfe and Lower Ouse and the Don and Rother. It is also bordered by both the Lower Trent and Erewash and the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchments, which are managed by the Environment Agency’s Midlands and Anglian Regions respectively. On the coast, the management catchment is bordered by the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP and the Humber Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy. The Humber Estuary has been identified as a Strategic Area for which further details can be found here. The significant level of surface water flooding within the Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice area means that it was identified as an FRA as part of the PFRA process. As such, a more detailed assessment of the catchment, flood risk, objectives and measures associated in this area can be found here. The management catchment has been divided into a number of drainage catchments for which East Riding of Yorkshire Council will develop a series of FRMP. These will involve producing studies including hydraulic models to benchmark existing flood risk in East Riding communities. These studies will provide the evidence base for future investment, leading on to future FASs. The drainage catchments which are located within the Hull and East Riding management catchment are:  Gypsey Race and Flamborough  South Holderness Level Drain  Earls Dyke  River Hull  Barmston Main Drain  Brough and Redcliff  Hornsea Mere  North Cave Beck  Old Fleet Drain  Market Weighton Canal  Burstwick Drain  Goole Topography The management catchment contains a large area of low lying land, parts of which are below sea level. This means that rivers draining into the Humber do so very slowly due to shallow river gradients. The highest land is in the Yorkshire Wolds, which rise in an arc across the north and then south between Hull and the Market Weighton Canal. The topography of the Wolds is typical of chalk landscapes, a gently rolling plateau falls gently eastward towards the low flat area of Holderness. The drainage pattern in the catchment is from north to south as water flows from the higher land to the Humber.

146

Figure 45: Overview map of the Hull and East Riding management catchment

147

Geology and soils The catchment is dominated by the chalk Wolds which stretch from the coast north of Bridlington to the Humber Bridge. On the inside of these crescent shaped hills is a layer of boulder clay. The oldest rocks out-crop in the west and are Triassic red beds however these are rarely exposed. The Triassic red beds are followed by a series of clays, limestones and sandstones. A small number of these beds are exposed in quarries on the western edge of the Wolds. Geology of the Lower Cretaceous is found on the north-eastern edge of the Wolds, and is exposed on the coast at Speeton. The Red Chalk underlies the Chalk throughout the region, though there are variations in thickness. The Chalk itself is about 400m thick, though it may be thicker under the glacial deposits of Holderness. An ancient Chalk sea cliff can be traced from Sewerby, just north of Bridlington, along the eastern edge of the Wolds to Hessle. This was the coastline of East Yorkshire before the last Ice Age. This glaciation brought huge quantities of till (boulder clay) to the area, creating the Holderness coastline. This boulder clay is now being eroded at an average rate of 2m per year; however, 10m of land can be lost in a year at some locations. Soils on the Wolds are generally thin and permeable. This means that a large proportion of rainfall infiltrates into the ground leaving a small amount to run off the surface. Elsewhere, the chalk is overlain by tills composed of loam, clays, sands and gravels. The thin soils and permeable nature of the geology in the upper catchment of the River Hull, Gypsey Race and the upper Market Weighton tributaries suggest that these reaches of the rivers have a reduced surface water input and react slowly to rainfall, unless the ground water levels are already elevated (as they were in 2007). The soils in the low lying Holderness Plain and Kingston-upon-Hull in the middle and lower Hull catchments are however less permeable. This causes an increase in run-off rate and volume of surface water into the drainage system (where gradient and capacity allows). It also causes areas of perched water where the flat gradient is not well served by artificial drainage or the drainage system does not have capacity to take this water. This impact was demonstrated recently during and after the 2007 flood, where trapped water caused damage in a number of areas of Kingston-upon-Hull and East Riding after the flood itself. Land use and land management Agricultural land constitutes 94% of management catchment whilst only 5% is urban. A large proportion of the catchment is arable horticultural land. There is also a large amount of grassland, particularly in the west of the catchment. Broadleaf and mixed woodland make up a smaller part of the catchment. The value of agricultural land is important, 89% of it is classified as between ‘very good’ and ‘moderate’ (grades 2-3). Large urban areas include Kingston-upon-Hull, Beverley and Bridlington. There are a number of smaller towns, including Hornsea, Driffield, Brough, Market Weighton and Withernsea. The majority of urban development is located within the city of Kingston- upon-Hull and the Haltemprice settlements. The remaining settlements are scattered throughout the catchment area with a number of coastal towns located to the east. Hydrology The annual total rainfall ranges from a little over 800mm over the Wolds to less than 650mm in Hull and Holderness, which is below the 820mm a year typical for the north east of England. Not all of this rainfall finds its way into rivers or the substantial Chalk aquifer as a proportion evaporates either directly or through vegetation. This is termed average annual evapotranspiration, and is around 520mm a year. The remaining rainfall, the ‘effective rainfall’, supports the river and other environmental

148

needs, as well as those of water users. The average effective rainfall for the area is therefore only around 100mm or about 15% of total rainfall. Land drainage works have taken place throughout the Hull and Holderness Plains since medieval times. The area was historically at risk of regular inundation from both the sea and rivers, and so was drained initially for agricultural use, and later to allow the development of ports and settlements. Much of the drainage network now in place is a legacy of the 1798 Land Drainage Bill and the subsequent formation of the Drainage Boards. Drainage schemes were constructed throughout the area extensively in the 1800s. A two level system is the result of this development. The River Hull is a high level system that is perched above ground level as it crosses the Holderness plain and the city of Kingston-upon-Hull until its confluence with the Humber. This gives it a steady gradient, draining the upper catchment without regular flooding of the low-lying plain and city. The lower level systems drain the lower lying land within the catchment and are periodically pumped into the higher River Hull, or in some cases discharged into the sewer network. The upper catchments of the River Hull, Market Weighton Canal, Gypsey Race and Stream Dyke are fed by a number of springs and becks within the Yorkshire Wolds, which in the case of the River Hull catchment, join together south of Driffield. The presence of Hempholme Weir means that the River Hull is not tidally influenced until downstream of the weir. Flood embankments are largely earthen in nature along the upper and middle reaches of the river in the East Riding of Yorkshire and in the northern parts of Kingston-upon-Hull. Many defences in Kingston upon Hull are comprised from a variety of structures including sheet steel piling, concrete/timber wharves and buildings. Most of the land adjacent to the River Hull and its lower tributaries as well as that adjacent to the lower reaches of Market Weighton Canal is low lying and falls within the indicative floodplain area. This includes the majority of Kingston-upon-Hull and significant parts of the East Riding of Yorkshire. A more detailed description of catchment hydrology and response can be found in the Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP. The natural environment The management catchment has a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. There are two SACs (Humber Estuary and Flamborough Head) and three SPAs (Humber Estuary, Hornsea Mere and Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs) in the management catchment as well as one Ramsar site (Humber Estuary). As well as this there are 42 SSSIs which include a wide variety of different habitats including species-rich chalk grassland, water-related sites such as fen and wet pasture, geological and earth heritage sites as well as a significant length of complex coastal and estuarine. There is one NNR within the management catchment: Spurn NNR. This is sand peninsular which extends southwards for 5.5km to the mouth of the Humber Estuary and is important for areas of saltmarsh and extensive mudflats. The historic environment There are no world heritage sites or designated battlefields located within catchment. There are however 449 SAMs which include moats, dykes, medieval settlements,

149

churchyards and castles as well as nine Registered Parks and Gardens as listed below:  Burton Constable  Thwaite Hall  Dalton Hall  Sledmere House  Houghton Hall  Pearson Park  Londesborough Park  East Park  Risby Hall

As well as these, there are a large number of Listed Buildings (around 2500) and conservations areas within the catchment. As per local environmental designations, we as risk management authorities recognise their importance however they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding The catchment is highly complex and has experienced a long history of flooding. Prior to the floods in the summer of 2007, the worst flooding experienced had been associated with tidal flooding. For example, the coastal flooding of 1953 was caused by a storm surge resulting in sea levels rising to almost 3m above normal high water levels as water was funnelled from the North Sea towards the English Channel. During the event, over 24,000 homes were flooded nationally and over 300 people lost their lives. It is said to have been one of the worst UK floods in living memory. The flooding of November 2000 was caused by a succession of low pressure weather systems coming in from the Atlantic. This resulted in significant flooding throughout the Yorkshire Region. Although the consequences of this flood were not significant in terms of number of properties flooded, significant areas of agricultural land were flooded alongside the River Foulness corridor and adjacent to the Market Weighton Canal. The River Hull caused widespread flooding to farmland alongside the Beverley and Barmston Drain. On the upper River Hull sandbags were deployed at low spots on bank tops and the Tidal Surge Barrier was utilised at low tide to reduce the water levels in the upstream reaches. Flooding to agricultural land also occurred in upstream reaches of the Winestead Drain and Skeffling Drain catchments. The floods of summer 2007 brought to light a new threat of flooding to Kingston-upon-Hull and the surrounding area; that of surface water and sewer flooding. During the summer of 2007 there were 27,197 properties in Yorkshire and Humberside that flooded. 8,476 of these were flooded from rivers and 18,472 were estimated to have been flooded from surface water. Of these, a total of 7,208 residential and 1,300 commercial properties were located in Kingston-upon-Hull and were primarily flooded from sewers and 6,178 households were flooded in East Riding of Yorkshire Council area. Over 100mm of rain fell in the catchment on the 25th June. The intensity of the rainfall overwhelmed ditches, drains and sewers. River levels on the River Hull reached 0.4m higher than previously recorded causing some localised flooding. However, it was the severity of surface water flooding that caused the majority of problems. It is estimated that £200 million worth of damage was caused by the summer floods to properties owned by Hull City Council, including schools and housing, one life was lost and 6,300 people had to live in temporary accommodation (1,400 people living in caravans).

150

Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea A significant area of land within the Hull and East Riding management catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, as seen in Figure 46. Key communities at risk include Kingston-upon-Hull, Burstwick, Hedon, Beverley, Cottingham, Gilberdyke, Driffield, Hornsea and Market Weighton. Just over 325,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Hull and East Riding Catchment, representing approximately 57% of the total population. Approximately 25,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, of which 700 are at high risk. Around 21% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with over 5,500ha being at high risk. The Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP identifies, in more detail, the risk of sea flooding to communities along the Holderness coast. This states that within the East Riding, there are low-lying areas of land at risk from coastal and/or estuarine flooding, particularly the areas around Barmston drain, south Hornsea, Tunstall drain and the north bank of the Humber, including Sunk Island and parts of Easington. Bridlington, Hornsea and Withernsea are all identified as communities at risk of coastal flooding. Although these locations have been highlighted as at risk of flooding, the main coastal issues within the Hull and East Riding catchment are associated with coastal erosion. Parts of the management catchment are exposed to tidal flooding from storm surges travelling up the Humber and its tributaries. Due to the strategic nature of the Humber Estuary, the area has been identified as a Strategic Area and as such risks, objectives and measures associated with this geographical location can be found in Part C: Appendices.

151

Figure 46: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Hull and East Riding management catchment

152

Table 31: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Hull and East Riding catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 572,450 1,450 65,900 260,450 100 No of services: 1,100 20 120 330 0

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential 74,600 700 7,550 17,700 <50 properties: No of airports: 0 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 360 <10 20 80 0 Railway (km): 120 <10 10 40 0 Agricultural land (ha): 198,750 5,600 21,850 15,100 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 4 0 0 0 waters within 50m: 4 No of EPR installations within 87 6 14 15 0 50m: SAC (ha): 700 500 <50 <50 0 SPA (ha): 1000 650 <50 50 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 700 550 <50 <50 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 0 0 0 0 SSSI (ha): 1,900 850 100 150 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,350 <50 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 850 <50 50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,490 60 280 390 0 No of Licensed water 400 90 60 40 0 abstractions:

Land drainage works have taken place throughout the Hull and Holderness Plains since medieval times. The area was historically at risk of regular inundation from both the sea and rivers, and so was drained initially for agricultural use, and later to allow the development of ports and settlements. Much of the drainage network now in place is a legacy of the 1798 Land Drainage Bill and the subsequent formation of the Drainage Boards. Drainage schemes were constructed throughout the area extensively in the 1800s. Flooding from local sources Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. In preparing the FRMP for the Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice FRA, Hull City Council has included their information within this document. Whilst East Riding of Yorkshire Council has published their own FRMP. This can be viewed at www.eastriding.gov.uk/flooding Flooding from local sources is experienced outside of the FRA, for example in the communities of Beverley and Bridlington as noted in 2007. The risks, objectives and measures associated with these risks can be seen in East Riding of Yorkshire Councils LFRMS. As illustrated in Figure 47, a large area of the Hull and East Riding management catchment is affected by surface water flooding. These risks are taken into account in

153

the relevant LFRMS and also represented within SFRA. SFRAs assess the different levels of flood risk in a local authority area and map these to assist with statutory land use planning. They provide concise information on flood risk issues, which assist planning officers in the preparation of the Local Plans and in the assessment of future planning applications. The relevant SFRAs for the Hull and East Riding management catchment can be viewed at:  East Riding of Yorkshire Council SFRA Level 1 and Level 2: http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control  The North East Yorkshire SFRA (2006) which covers Ryedale District Council, Scarborough Borough Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority: North East Yorkshire SFRA (2006)  Hull City Council SFRA 2007: Hull City Council SFRA Together the LFRMS, SFRAs and Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice FRA FRMPs provide a comprehensive assessment of local flood risk within the Hull and East Riding management catchment.

154

Figure 47: Flooding from surface water: Hull and East Riding management catchment

155

Flooding from reservoirs There are 12 reservoirs in the catchment. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 6,500 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Hull and East Riding Catchment, representing just 1% of the total population. 550 non-residential properties are at risk as well as nearly 1,700 ha of agricultural land. No international environmental designations are at risk however a small area of SSSI falls within the maximum flood extent as well as a small number of historic assets. Table 32: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Hull and East Riding management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 572,450 6,450 No of services: 1,100 10

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 74,600 550 No of airports: 0 0 Roads (km): 360 <10 Railway (km): 120 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 198,750 1,700

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 4 0 No of EPR installations within 50m: 87 1 SAC (ha): 700 0 SPA (ha): 1000 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 700 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 0 SSSI (ha): 1,900 <50 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,350 <50 SAMs (ha): 850 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 2,490 20 No of Licensed water abstractions: 400 30

156

Figure 48: Flooding from reservoirs: Hull and East Riding management catchment

157

Coastal erosion The following summary of coastal erosion risks is taken directly from the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP and has been provided voluntarily by East Riding of Yorkshire Council in their role of Maritime District Authority. The Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point coastline can be considered as one system in terms of coastal processes as the effects of a change (e.g. building a defence) in one area will be felt in another. However, there are five main components of the shoreline of this SMP, four of which are located within the Hull and East Riding catchment:  Chalk cliffs (Flamborough Head to Sewerby)  Holderness cliffs (Sewerby to Kilnsea)  Spurn Head  Outer Humber Flamborough Head is a headland composed of 30-50m high near-vertical chalk cliffs. The cliff line has formed into a series of small bays in which sandy and rocky beaches occur, such as at South Landing and Danes Dyke. The chalk is relatively hard in comparison to the clay cliffs of Holderness to the south. The cliffs are eroding at a slow rate (0 - 0.4m per year) and this is the reason that a headland has formed. The headland provides shelter to the coastline to the south from the most common north-easterly waves. The Holderness cliffs extend for 60km from Sewerby to Easington and are relatively ‘soft’ cliffs ranging from less than 3m up to around 40m in height. The cliffs are eroding rapidly at an average rate of approximately 1.8m per year. The process of erosion along the Holderness cliffs is not new and has been occurring since the end of the last ice age. Over the last 1,000 years, the Holderness coast has retreated by around 2km, causing the loss of 26 villages listed in the Doomsday survey of 1086. Erosion of the Holderness cliffs takes place through repeated landslide activity. Waves reaching the base of the cliffs remove material and this causes the cliff face to steepen to the point at which it collapses under its own weight. Rain water can also help these processes by saturating the cliff material, making it slide and collapse more easily. The peninsular of Spurn Head is an important feature at the mouth of the Humber Estuary. Spurn Head is made up of a narrow ridge consisting mainly of sands and gravels. This feature forms a barrier extending 5.5km into the mouth of the Humber Estuary. Coarse sediment eroded from Holderness cliffs feeds the Spurn barrier and helps maintain the feature. Spurn Head has breached (meaning a section of the barrier has been broken through by storms) repeatedly in historic times. In 1996 there was a severe breach of the dunes requiring a section to be in-filled to maintain access along the Spurn Head road. Spurn provides shelter for the extensive mudflats within the Estuary, especially at Spurn Bight. It also helps give protection against waves from the north east to areas such as Cleethorpes and Grimsby on the south bank of the Humber Estuary. Within this SMP, the term ‘outer Humber Estuary’ describes the shoreline from Kilnsea to Stone Creek on the north bank of the Humber and from Immingham (eastern jetty) to Donna Nook on the south bank of the Humber. This stretch of the Humber is influenced both by the tide and the flow from the river. Fine sediment that has been eroded from the Holderness cliffs is pulled into the Estuary by the tide. Much of this fine material is deposited within the Estuary and forms the mudflats, salt marshes and beach areas that line both the north and south banks.

158

Partnership working As noted in Part A of the FRMP, managing flood and coastal risks, and particularly local flood risks, requires many organisations to work together in partnership. Within the Hull and East Riding management catchment the following RMAs work closely together to identify, plan and deliver flood risk and coastal erosion projects in our day-to-day work and formally through the East Yorkshire and Hull Flood Risk Partnership:  North Yorkshire County Council  Beverley and North Holderness  East Riding of Yorkshire Council IDB  Yorkshire Water Services  South Holderness IDB  Highways Authority  Ouse and Humber IDB  Environment Agency As well as this, RMAs work the district authorities in North Yorkshire, in this case Ryedale District, as well as East Riding of Yorkshire Council in their role as Maritime District Authority. One example of how organisations work together to manage flood risk is through the River Hull Integrated Catchment Strategy which is led by East Riding of Yorkshire Council. This ongoing strategy aims to produce a multi-agency study that will broaden the scope and add value to the Environment Agency Draft River Hull Flood Risk Management Strategy. It will utilise the existing Environment Agency hydraulic model and add current and newly commissioned hydraulic models for other complex and varied sources of flood risk. It will re-evaluate the assumptions, boundary conditions and data from the original study to provide an agreed updated evidence base which all the RMAs and the community accept as the best available evidence of the combined flood risk in the wider natural River Hull valley. This will be used to form the investment plan to reduce flood risk and improve the environment in the short, medium and long term. Currently the project is assessing the maintenance of existing pumping stations. Proposed actions regarding pumping stations are included in this plan but are subject to change pending the outcome of this work. An example of partnership working within the Hull and East Riding management catchment is through the Humber Strategy. Since the publication of the Humber Strategy in 2008 there have been a number of legislative changes and, more pertinently, a change to the partnership funding approach for flood defence works. The Strategy is now being updated to account for these changes. The objective of this update is to identify an approach to the management of the tidal defences which is supported by all the LLFA and is viable under the existing funding system and environmental legislation. Given the strategic nature of Humber Estuary, this strategy area has been included in the Humber FRMP as a Strategic Area. Economic sustainability The scale of development and the future pressure for development is important in the long term planning for flood risk and coastal erosion risk management. Firstly, impermeable surfaces can lead to run-off bypassing soil; increased volume of storm run-off and reduced travel times; increased flood peaks; Find out more: reduced groundwater recharge and reduced low flows. Information regarding LEPs can be found here: Secondly, inappropriately  York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEP: located development can lead http://www.businessinspiredgrowth.com/ to an increase in flood risk to  Humber LEP: http://www.humberlep.org/ those properties placed within known FRAs and also to sites

159

downstream due to increased runoff. It is vitally important to recognise the need for development and regeneration to allow sustainable economic growth to take place; this is supported by national and local planning policy. There is considerable pressure for development and regeneration within the Hull and East Riding management catchment, particularly around the Humber Estuary. The Humber LEP predicts that investment linked to renewables and regeneration could result in up to £7bn of further investment across the Humber including the key development sites of Greenport Hull, Paull and Brough. In addition to the energy and chemicals sector, the Humber is the largest trading estuary in the UK and the fourth largest in northern Europe, handling almost 80m tonnes of cargo annually. This pressure for economic growth is summarised through the Strategic Economic Plan for the area for which one key objective is to “stimulate economic development through further investment in flood and coastal risk management. Promote and embed sustainable development activities across the LEP area to sustain the natural environment”. Conclusions and objectives for the Hull and East Riding catchment The Hull and East Riding management catchment lies in East Yorkshire with the southern limit delineated by the River Humber. Covering an area of approximately 2,226km2 the catchment includes 65 main rivers that are approximately 331km in combined length. These rivers include the River Hull, Foulness, Fleet Drain, Gypsey Race and Driffield Beck. The management catchment contains a large area of low lying land, parts of which are below sea level. This means that rivers draining into the Humber do so very slowly due to shallow river gradients. Soils on the Wolds are generally thin and permeable. This means that a large proportion of rainfall infiltrates into the ground leaving a small amount to run off the surface. The annual total rainfall ranges from a little over 800mm over the Wolds to less than 650mm in Hull and Holderness, which is below the 820mm a year typical for the north east of England. Land drainage works have taken place throughout the Hull and Holderness Plains since medieval times. The area was historically at risk of regular inundation from both the sea and rivers, and so was drained initially for agricultural use, and later to allow the development of ports and settlements. A two level system is the result of this development. The River Hull is a high level system that is perched above ground level as it crosses the Holderness plain and the city of Kingston-upon-Hull until its confluence with the Humber. This gives it a steady gradient, draining the upper catchment without regular flooding of the low-lying plain and city. The lower level systems drain the lower lying land within the catchment and are periodically pumped into the higher River Hull, or in some cases discharged into the sewer network. The management catchment is highly complex and has experienced a long history of flooding. Prior to the floods in the summer of 2007, the worst flooding experienced had been associated with tidal flooding. The floods of summer 2007 brought to light a new threat of flooding to Kingston-upon-Hull and the surrounding area; that of surface water and sewer flooding Nearly 325,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in the Hull and East Riding Catchment, representing approximately 57% of the total population. Approximately 25,000 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, of which 700 are at high risk. Around 20% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with almost 5,000ha being at high risk.

160

Parts of the management catchment are exposed to tidal flooding from storm surges travelling up the Humber and its tributaries. Due to the strategic nature of the Humber Estuary, the area has been identified as a Strategic Area. As well as this, the significant level of surface water flooding within the Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice area means that it was identified as an FRA as part of the PFRA process. There are 12 reservoirs in the catchment. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 6,500 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Hull and East Riding Catchment, representing just 1% of the total population. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 33Table 33 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Hull and East Riding management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 33: Relevant objectives: Hull and East Riding management catchment

Reference Objective Relevant? SOC 1 Understanding Flood Risk and Working in Partnership  SOC 2 Community Preparedness and Resilience  SOC 3 Reduce Community Disruption  SOC 4 Flood Risk and Development  SOC 5 Reduce risk to people  ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  As previously noted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council has developed their own FRMP for the Haltemprice villages and have developed a LFRMS which has not been included within this Humber FRMP. Within these plans, the councils set out their own objectives for managing local flood risk within their administrative areas. Objectives relating to the management of coastal issues can be found in the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP. Measures across the Hull and East Riding catchment 36 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Hull and East Riding catchment. This includes a number of measures that have been taken from existing plans and strategies that have been provided on a voluntary basis by North Yorkshire County Council (x17). A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. 13 measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding, through structural and non structural action, have been identified in the Hull and East Riding

161

management catchment. A detailed assessment of risk has taken place and has identified a number of fluvial and coastal capital schemes which focus around the refurbishment or replacement of existing defences and pumping stations. The measures can be summarised as:  The maintenance of existing assets such as culverts, river banks and river defences  The ongoing development and delivery of a prioritised programme of projects (the MTP)  The delivery of projects which complement the objectives of the “River Hull Headwaters SSSI” plan. The vision of the plan is to return the river to ecological health A number of high profile protection measures have been identified for delivery within the first cycle of the FRMP (2015-21) including the works proposed at Market Weighton. The proposed actions to repair and maintain Mill Beck Culvert and Newport Floodwalls will reduce flood risk to 126 and 270 properties respectively. The Burstwick drain also has measures proposed which maintain the current standard of flood protection for 360 properties at an estimated cost of £330k. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use The prevention of damage caused by floods is a significant focus of work within the Hull and East Riding management catchment with 10 measures being identified, of these four being associated with the further assessment of flood risk through the development of strategies, monitoring programmes and flood risk modelling. Examples of these measures include:  Support and inform the River Hull Integrated Catchment Strategy. The strategy aims to improve the drainage and manage flood risk, with a number of options being explored including the removal of sunken vessels and re-profiling  Modelling to inform future management of the flood defence at Old Howe Bank Four measures have been identified relating to the adaptation of receptors to reduce the consequences of flooding. These are all taken from North Yorkshire County Council’s LFRMS and relate to inputting to Local Development Plans, working with LEP to deliver regeneration and flood protection and the role of LLFAs as statutory consultees on planning applications. Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood 10 measures have been identified that deliver preparedness, the majority of which relate to improving the flood forecasting and warning service as well as increasing public awareness so they know what to do in the event of flooding. A number of potential forecasting and warning improvements for specific communities have been identified for example Wawne and Meaux, Wilfholme to Beverley, North Cave, Burstwick and Tickton and Weel. Throughout the catchment the Environment Agency will continue to encourage the take up of FWD, particularly in communities where this falls below 50%. Throughout the Hull and East Riding management catchment there are a number of existing community warden schemes and/or community flood plans in place. The Environment Agency is committed to continue working with these communities to ensure they feel prepared for flooding and where required support the development of warden schemes or flood plans to support their existing levels of preparedness.

162

Some examples of these communities are Blacktoft, Brough, Newland, North Ferriby, Shiptonthorpe and South Cave. Six measures which will improve community preparedness to a flooding event have been included from North Yorkshire County Council’s LFRMS. These are focused around developing better monitoring of groundwater, developing a flood risk toolkit, supporting educational institutions and updating resilience forum response plans. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population Three measures associated with recovery and review has been identified by North Yorkshire County Council through their LFRMS. These measures are associated with their statutory duty, under Section 19 of the FWMA, to assess and investigate flooding incidents with their authority areas

163

3.8. The Idle and Torne management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Idle and Torne catchment covers the north of the county of Nottinghamshire. To the west of the catchment, in upper stream areas of the Idle catchment, is an area of north-east Derbyshire, whilst the north and north-westerly parts of the catchment fall into South Yorkshire and the Metropolitan Council areas of Rotherham and Doncaster. The north-east of the catchment is within a rural part of North Lincolnshire. The upstream sections of the catchment lie in areas of a former strong deep coal mining industry, and as you move more to the north and east, the land becomes flat and low-lying and is an area recognised for good agriculture. Population and urban areas reflect these land uses as well, with the catchment being sparsely populated in the low lying areas, compared to the upper reaches of the catchment. The River Idle forms the largest sub-catchment area within the wider management area, with an area of just under 900km2. The River Torne forms the remainder of the management area, covering just below 400km2. Mansfield forms a significant urban area on the headwaters of the Maun and Meden watercourses, which flow towards Retford to form the River Idle. Worksop lies on the River Ryton, which is a major tributary of the Idle, downstream of Retford. Doncaster lies at the head of the Torne catchment. There is little gradient on this watercourse and much of its catchment is defined by pumped land drainage to ensure that the agricultural land does not become inundated by water that cannot drain naturally away. Both the Torne and the Idle discharge into the River Trent. When the Trent is in high flow these river systems are pumping by terminal pumping stations at West Stockwith, for the Idle and at Keadby for the Torne. The management catchment is bordered by three others: the Don and Rother, Lower Trent and Erewash and the Derwent Derbyshire. Topography Mansfield is at an elevation of around 200mAOD in places, but land levels quickly drop away and are around 14mAOD in Retford. The lack of gradient from here to its eventual outfall into the Trent at West Stockwith, gives rise to its name the Idle. The Torne has a significantly lesser gradient, starting west of Haworth at around 18mAOD as it drains areas of land in the Isle of Axholme that are close to sea level. It crosses land that has a network of land drainage and pumping stations geared to ensuring the land remains productive for agricultural purposes.

164

Figure 49: Overview map of the Idle and Torne management catchment

165

Geology and soils In the west of the management catchment, Lower Magnesian Limestone overlies small areas of Coal Measures. These form a broad band along the western edge of the area that is separated from the overlying strata by the Middle Permian Marl, which gradually becomes sparser in the south. To the south of Worksop, the Middle Permnian Marl is overlain directly by Sherwood Sandstones. This is intervened in the north by Upper Magnesian Limestone and Upper Permian Marl. The outcrop of the Sherwood Sandstone underlies the majority of the area and continues out to the east, where it is overlain by the Mercia Mudstone, which forms a low escarpment. Recent drift deposits, including sands, gravels, silts and clays, commonly overlie these strata throughout the area. They can be glacial in origin, but alluvial deposits associated with river systems are a more dominant feature. The Doncaster area is particularly notable for its complex drift sequence, which varies in depth and spatiality. Sandstone outcrops occur throughout the catchment, the most significant of which is the Sherwood Sandstone outcrop which forms a broad belt between Nottingham and South Yorkshire. This outcrop gives rise to the landscape of Sherwood Forest and is also a nationally significant aquifer, classified a Groundwater Protection Zone, which provides a water supply for the wider area. The Idle and the Torne both issue from the low-lying hills in this area, where wells, boreholes and springs are used to supply public drinking water. Land drainage and flood defences are a significant influence in the Idle and Torne management catchment. They have altered the way sediment is carried and deposited by changing the characteristics of the flows in the river and often by changing the channel form itself. This has resulted in less deposition and erosion within the channels where the changes have taken place, however by increasing conveyance through flood risk locations, there is a tendency for sediment deposition to increase in other downstream locations. The sandy soils, located to the north of Nottingham tend to be better drained and much more permeable. However, they also tend to be more susceptible to soil erosion, particularly where they are found on steeper slopes such as parts of Sherwood Forest, near Mansfield. These areas of sandy soil are associated with the underlying sandstone geology, both of which are important aquifers for supplying water to the region. Land use and land management The management catchment is home to just over 600,000 people. Only around 3,000 of these people live in the highest FRAs. This reflects how the population is spread across this catchment in relationship with its land use, with the dominant agricultural areas having lower levels of population density. The land in the lower reaches of the catchment area, commonly known as the Isle of Axholme, is mainly used for arable farming. Agricultural improvements and land drainage practices have impacted upon biodiversity. In most areas the floodplain is no longer naturally linked to the river due to engineered flood defences and river channels which protect this land from flooding. The Isle of Axholme contains 28,000 properties and over 30,000ha of high-grade agricultural land which is a significant contributor to the local economy, with several high value crops of national significance. There is also significant infrastructure and many businesses. Upstream from the Trent’s tidal limit, the land is rolling and has a mix of pastoral and arable farming. The low-lying nature of the land means that land drainage is an important issue, and the current land-use depends on the continued work of the IDBs. Agricultural practices in the area are also affected by limited water resources.

166

The catchment is deemed to be a closed catchment to any new applications for abstraction of water. Much of the slightly raised land (including Sherwood Forest), which runs northwards from Nottingham along the western side of the River Trent catchment is heavily forested with extensive areas of parkland, heathland and rough grazing. The upper reaches of both the Torne and Idle catchments are heavily urbanised, particularly around Doncaster and Mansfield. Many of the former mining industry has been replaced by industrial estates and distribution centres that create a large impermeable footprint. Hydrology The River Idle is formed at the confluence of the Rivers Maun and Meden near Markham Moor in Nottinghamshire and has a total catchment area of 896km2. The Idle initially flows north through Retford and Bawtry before turning eastward to join the tidal reach of the River Trent at West Stockwith, just north of Gainsborough. Most of the Idle catchment is low lying, in particular downstream of Bawtry where the catchment comprises heavily drained farmland with numerous sand and gravel pits. Parts of the river network are spring fed with a considerable contribution to flows from groundwater. On average the management catchment receives relatively low rainfall (640mm per annum). The permeable nature of the geology and soils means that the catchment has a low response to rainfall, but following prolonged rainfall when the groundwater levels are high, surface water ponds on the low-lying parts of the catchment. To improve drainage from these flat areas during periods of high flow, water from parts of the River Idle catchment is pumped into the River Trent. Within this management catchment there can be significant differences on a sub catchment scale. The Maun catchment is heavily urbanised in the mid to upper reaches, with a quick response to rainfall and higher overland flow. This part of the catchment receives an average annual rainfall of 710mm, but is susceptible to rapidly responding to summer thunderstorms. Modelling shows areas of significant hazard in Mansfield, particularly around the culverts at Field Mill Pond, Bridge Street and Rock Valley. The Bridge Street and Rock Valley culverts pose a risk of flooding to Mansfield town centre, especially as they could become easily blocked due to their varying shape and size. The Idle has two other main tributaries, the River Poulter and the River Ryton. The River Poulter has been dammed to form ornamental lakes and joins the Idle close to Welbeck Abbey. The River Ryton rises at Anston, west of Worksop and meanders northward to join the Idle near Bawtry. Both tributaries rise on magnesian limestone before crossing onto the Sherwood sandstone outcrop to join the Idle. The geology results in a medium to high rainfall response. The River Torne rises near Harworth in South Yorkshire and flows north east past Doncaster, across the low-lying floodplain of the Trent with its many artificial drainage channels to join the tidal reach of the River Trent at Keadby near Scunthorpe. The catchment has an area of 386km2 and comprises permeable Sherwood sandstone geology in the upstream reaches before flowing across Keuper marl within the Trent valley. The Torne catchment receives a lower amount of rainfall (approximately 600mm per annum) in comparison to the Idle and the sandstone geology underlying the majority of the catchment results in a slow run-off response to rainfall. The natural environment The management catchment has a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP

167

concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. The Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA, located next to the Humber Estuary, is an extensive lowland raised mire system and is the largest remaining lowland peatland in England. These sites are of European importance for several species of bird, including birds of prey in the upland areas, and water birds (especially geese, ducks and waders) during the migration around the Estuary. In total there are 2,020ha of SAC and 921ha of SPA in the Idle and Torne Catchment Management area. As well as this there is 5,000ha of SSSI. There are two NNRs within the Idle and Torne management catchment which are the Humberhead Peatlands and Sherwood Forest. There are a further six LNRs within the area. The historic environment The distinct land uses in the catchment have left a significant mark upon the historic environment. There is evidence of ongoing and former mining practices recognisable in the upper reaches of the catchment. The distinctive drainage patterns that have been constructed along with the pumping stations that dot the landscape characterise large areas of the lower reaches of the catchment. There are no world heritage sites or registered battlefields within the Idle and Thorne management catchment. There are however approximately 172 SAMs which include the Dog Island Moat near Gainsborough, the medieval defences of Bolsover and Kings Mill Viaduct. As well as this there are a number of Registered Parks and Gardens including Clumber Park, Bolsover Castle and Shireoaks Hall. There are a large number of Listed Buildings and conservations areas within the management catchment. As with local environmental designations, their importance is recognised and they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding The present layout of the channels and flood defences of the tidal Trent dates back to the extensive drainage work carried out in the late 1600s. A Dutch engineer called Cornelius Vermuyden was commissioned by King James II of England to carry out major flood relief works in the lower Trent. This included diverting the Rivers Idle, Torne and Don, and was followed in later centuries by further works to create the flood defences and land drainage system of flood banks, flood walls pumping stations and flood storage areas that exist today. Flooding has occurred in a number of locations over recent years including Worksop (2007), Retford (2000 and 2007) and Crowle (2012). The risk for the rest of this management catchment is generally low, however further flooding has been reported in a number of smaller communities in recent years. Flooding of agricultural land remains a particular concern of farmers particularly on the lower River Idle and within the Isle of Axholme. In December 2013, a tidal surge on the East Coast of England corresponded with high tides on the River Trent to cause overtopping of flood defences into parts of the Isle of Axholme. This event is significant in terms of its return period, but demonstrates the risk to the lower land within this catchment from the adjacent River Trent. The Isle of Axholme Flood Risk Management Strategy highlights the importance of land drainage and flood risk management infrastructure to the northern part of the Idle and Torne Catchment.

168

The Isle of Axholme study area covers 520km2, of which 380km2 is dependent upon artificial drainage and pumping to prevent it being regularly flooded. The Environment Agency has produced a Strategy looking at the drainage of this area as well as managing the flood risk from the Rivers Idle and Torne. The Isle of Axholme is also at flood risk from the Rivers Trent, Don and Ouse to add to the complexity of the area. Approximately 28,000 properties, 30,000ha of high grade agricultural land, numerous business, critical infrastructure, as well national and internationally important habitats make this an area of national significance. The Strategy has been shaped by the local community views, as well of those of key stakeholders to establish the future direction of flood risk management for the area. The greatest issue concerns the cost of continuing to operate pumping, and the replacement of these pumps, to manage flood risk and land drainage in the area. Without maintaining some form of pumping all of the aforementioned assets will be at risk of flooding as the outfalls that discharge into the River Trent eventually block with silt. The Strategy, which was approved by Defra in 2014, seeks to achieve long-term, sustainable and cost-effective solutions for managing flood risk. It also looks to balance the often competing needs between the high value agricultural and environmental assets in the area. A number of options were considered before the Strategy settled on a preferred option of maintaining the pumping operation at the terminal pumping stations at Keadby and West Stockwith, but to look for opportunities to reduce the burden of pumping. Opportunities to investigate flood storage in the catchment are preferred as part of this option and to investigate opportunities of reconnecting some of the watercourse back to their floodplain. The Isle is currently protected from flood risk to a very high standard, and the direction in the future will be to gradually reduce this standard to a 1.33% AEP. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea A large area of land within the Idle and Thorne management catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, as seen below. Close to 45,000 people are estimated to live in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, including the risk of flooding from the tidal reaches of the River Trent, within the management catchment. 3,000 of these people live within the areas at highest risk of flooding. Much of the flood risk in the area is associated with the lower reaches and agricultural land around the Isle of Axholme. Nearly 30,000ha of agricultural land is at risk of flooding, from rivers alone, whilst 51km of railway is also at risk of flooding and this demonstrates the importance of the Isle of Axholme in other economic terms, not just from farming practices. Outside of the communities that lay within the Isle of Axholme the significant communities at flood risk include Retford, Worksop and Mansfield.

169

Figure 50: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Idle and Torne Management Catchment

170

Table 34: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Idle and Torne management catchment

Total in High Mediu Low Very management risk m risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 612,350 3,250 25,650 16,050 0 No of services: 990 40 80 60 0

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 59,950 1,050 3,950 3,650 <50 No of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 410 <10 20 20 0 Railway (km): 260 10 20 20 0 Agricultural land (ha): 109,750 7,950 13,050 9,550 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 50 5 4 2 0 50m: SAC (ha): 2,000 400 1,150 200 0 SPA (ha): 900 250 500 150 0 RAMSAR site (ha): <50 0 0 0 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 5,000 850 1,350 350 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 5,000 150 50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 150 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,060 70 60 200 0 No of Licensed water 880 370 110 90 0 abstractions:

Flooding from local sources Surface water and sewer flooding affect the catchment. Mansfield, Worksop, Retford, Crowle and areas to the East of Doncaster have experienced these types of flooding, along with many other smaller communities. Our Flood Maps for Surface Water Flooding show many areas at risk across the catchment. Ground water levels within the Isle of Axholme area are normally kept artificially low by the drainage activities of the IDBs, Environment Agency and others, and so while this management activity continues the risk of groundwater flooding in the lowlands is low.

171

Figure 51: Flooding from surface water: Idle and Torne management catchment

172

Flooding from reservoirs The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 3,000 people at risk from flooding resulting from failure of a reservoir within the Idle and Torne Catchment. Over 1,000 non-residential properties, along with 7km of railway and highway are also at risk in the event of a reservoir failure. Table 35: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Idle and Torne management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 612,350 3000 No of services: 990 40

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 59,950 1,150 No of airports: 1 0 Roads (km): 410 <10 Railway (km): 260 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 109,750 4,250

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 50 1 SAC (ha): 2,000 0 SPA (ha): 900 0 RAMSAR site (ha): <50 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 5,000 300 Parks and Gardens (ha): 5,000 250 SAMs (ha): 150 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 2,060 110 No of Licensed water abstractions: 880 180

173

Figure 52: Flooding from reservoirs: Idle and Torne management catchment

174

Partnership working Nottinghamshire County Council and North Lincolnshire Council are the LLFAs that cover the majority of the catchment, with Doncaster, Rotherham and Derbyshire, also having an interest. Axholme and North Nottinghamshire Water Level Management Board and Doncaster East IDB, are also involved in the drainage and flood risk aspects of the lower reaches of the Idle and Torne catchments. The Environment Agency works closely with the IDBs and LLFAs to develop the programme of capital upgrade works for flood risk management. The IDBs and the Environment Agency have jointly prepared a Public Sector Cooperation Arrangement that allows both parties to undertake works on the others’ behalf, should it be more efficient and cost effective for them to do so. Several partnership groups exist within the management catchment. The River Idle Partnership and the Torne Catchment Partnership are forums that include councils, conservation bodies, landowners and other interested parties. These forums have the objective to improve the WFD status of the water bodies as well seeking improvements to flood risk management. The Bassetlaw Drainage Coordination group is multi agency forum for dealing with flooding issues from all sources and seeks to find joint solutions wherever possible. Conclusions and objectives for the Idle and Torne catchment The Idle and Torne management catchment is approximately 1300km2 in area with a population of approximately 610,000 people. The Idle and the Torne form two separate catchments that both discharge into the River Trent at terminal pumping stations. The River Idle catchment area is just under 900km2. The upper reaches of this catchment is within an area that has been historically, heavily influenced by the coal mining industry. This part of the catchment is the most urbanised and includes the town of Mansfield. Other significant urban centres include Worksop and Retford. Land levels drop quickly from the upper reaches to leave a catchment that has very little gradient. The River Torne catchment area is close to 400km2 and is characterised by a flat gradient. Doncaster forms the most significant urban area in the upper reaches of the catchment. Outside of the urban areas and the upper reaches of these catchments the land is predominantly used for agriculture. The lowest lying land that forms a boundary with the River Trent is known as the Isle of Axholme. Given the low gradient in these catchments, the use of this land for agricultural purposes is dependent upon artificial drainage and pumping undertaken by the Environment Agency and the IDB’s in the area. This part of the country tends to receive below average amounts of rainfall, and this is a factor that contributes to a pressure upon water resources in the area. Land drainage and flood risk management have had a defining impact upon this area of land. There are however questions as to how sustainable this approach is in the future, in terms of both the costs needed to fund the level of flood protection currently provided, and also its impact upon biodiversity. The Environment Agency, in response, has developed an LFRMS to consider the future of the area in relation to future funding, conflicting interests and a changing climate. This Strategy now shapes many of the future ambitions of the Environment Agency and our partners in the area. The LFRMS reviewed the standard of flood protection provided by the layout of land drainage channels and series of earth embankments across the Isle of Axholme. Much of the extensive drainage network remains from the work carried out by

175

Cornelius Vermuyden in the 1600s. The review found that the level of flood protection for the majority of the Isle was very high, and this is supported by the lack of historical flood data within the Isle of Axholme. Across the catchment there have been recent flooding occurrences that have affected property and businesses in Retford, Worksop and Crowle. In December 2013 communities within the Isle of Axholme were flooded by an overtopping of the River Trent defences from a large tidal surge in the North Sea coinciding with high tide levels on the River Trent. Whilst the Isle of Axholme has a current high standard of flood protection, the event in December, does highlight the vulnerability of the Isle to flooding from outside of the catchment, as the area can be affected by the Rivers Trent, Don and Ouse. In total there are approximately 45,000 people living at risk of flooding, with an estimated 28,000 of these being within the Isle of Axholme itself. When considering the flood risk to the Isle of Axholme it is also critical to understand the risk posed to agricultural land, key critical infrastructure and areas of internationally significant biodiversity. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 36 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Idle and Torne management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 36: Relevant objectives: Idle and Torne management catchment

176

 Both of the terminal pumping stations on the Idle and the Torne require refurbishment works. In particular Keadby Pumping Station on the Torne catchment requires more urgent attention. Plans to refurbish this pumping station and West Stockwith pumping station on the River Idle will need to balance the need to maintain protection from flooding whilst meeting the environmental requirements of the Isle of Axholme Strategy  Reviewing the results of the Trent tidal hydraulic model to understand the implications to how the Idle and Torne catchment links to the integration with wider Humber estuary, whilst providing appropriate levels of protection Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use Six measures associated with the prevention of damage caused by floods have been identified in the Idle and Torne management catchment. These predominantly are linked to how working with the environment can help to achieve flood risk benefits whilst delivering environmental outcomes. Prevention measures include:-  investigating ways of working with the environment to reconnect the floodplain with rivers, in areas of mineral workings, especially sand and gravel sites, to assist in improving flood risk management  deliver priority habitat and help to deliver flood risk management improvements by ensuring that appropriate designs are in place at the onset of a project;  identify the potential for rehabilitating watercourses and developing plans for implementing land management improvements, all of which can have positive impacts upon flood risk  consider opportunities for storing water in areas upstream of urban centres  Review the Trent hydraulic model to enable us to consider flood risk within the Idle and Torne, and help us to deliver multi-benefit environmental outcomes with respect to the Isle of Axholme Strategy  Develop specific Torne and Idle hydraulic models to consider optimising maintenance and biodiversity options Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood Six measures have been identified that deliver preparedness. These include:-  Investigate flood resilience for infrastructure, such as transportation links, energy services and telecommunications, by first understanding what key infrastructure is at risk of flooding, then determining how damages can be limited and what measures can be undertaken to prepare for flooding  Working with communities to develop flood warden schemes and improve the uptake of FWD  improve flood forecasting through better warning and expansion of the service Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population No measures have been identified.

177

3.9. The Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The entire Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment is approximately 1,500km2 and predominantly rural. The main urban areas are Louth, Grimsby, Immingham, Cleethorpes and Brigg. Approximately 276,000 people live in the catchment. The port and refineries near Immingham, Grimsby and Tetney are important employers in the region. Tourism is also important to the economy of the area, particularly for coastal towns such as Cleethorpes and the Lincolnshire Wolds, an AONB. Farming too, is also an important source of employment. The catchment includes the south bank of the River Humber and Humber Estuary. It also includes part of the Lincolnshire North Sea coastline. Topography The Grimsby, Ancholme and Louth management catchment is in Lincolnshire. The Humber Estuary is located at its northern and eastern boundaries. The Lincolnshire Wolds, an area of high chalk hills with a topographic height of 160mAOD, dissect the catchment in two. The Ancholme floodplain lies to the west and Grimsby and Louth Coastal lowlands to the east. In the lowlands, rivers and their tributaries are embanked and heavily modified. Drainage is influenced by a number of pumping stations and the tidal cycle. The steeper slopes of the upland area of the catchment result in water running-off or through the ground more quickly. Therefore, the uplands have a quicker response in terms of rivers flows. This results in a faster flows and higher discharge rates. In the upland catchment, flooding is likely to be of short duration, with high-velocity flood waters of shallow depth flowing over areas directly next to the main channel.

178

Figure 53: Overview map of the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment

179

Geology and soils The underlying geology of the catchment broadly encompasses a large area of chalk under the Lincolnshire Wolds. This continues all the way to the coast. To the west of the Wolds, the Ancholme Valley is underlain by mudstones, with a mix of mudstones, ironstone and limestone at the catchment’s most westerly boundary. The mudstone and clay areas of the catchment are not very permeable. As a result, it cannot store large volumes of water. Consequently, these areas generate run-off and lead to high river flows which can pose a flood risk. The limestone and chalk areas of the catchment are more permeable and absorb and store rainwater. This helps to reduce flood risk. Most groundwater is found in the limestone and chalk areas. Aquifers, which store groundwater, are present across the eastern part of the catchment where chalk is predominant. They can also be found in the western area of limestone which forms the north Lincolnshire Edge. Major aquifers are found in the far east of the catchment, where limestone geology predominates and in the east where the geology is chalk. This complex aquifer system is difficult to manage in terms of flood risk. This is because groundwater flooding is dependent on a number of factors, particularly local geology and topography. This means that although the conditions which cause flooding (high groundwater levels and rainfall) can be monitored, it is difficult to predict where and when flooding may occur. There is a risk of flooding from groundwater in the coastal areas from Barton-upon-Humber to Humberston. The solid geology of the Lymn-Steeping valley consists of the impermeable Kimmeridge Clay. In this area, rainfall tends to run rapidly over land to join the nearest watercourse. This means flow levels are at their highest soon after rainfall begins. The area 5-10km inland from the coast is made up of marine alluvium. These deposits are underlain by glacial till. There are also blow wells, a series of springs that bring water to the surface from the chalk aquifer. These occur where pressure pushes water up through weak spots in the overlying glacial till. These springs tends to be located just to the east of the edge of the marine alluvium. These blow wells have caused flooding in the past. There are a number of soil types within the catchment. The well-draining soils such as sands and chalk, which absorb water, are primarily located in the uplands and along the coastal fringe to the east. Clay soils, such as those located in the Ancholme valley, are less likely to absorb water and are slower to drain. Land use and land management The agricultural sector is important in terms of both the local economy and the environment, covering 88% of the land area (70% arable & 18% pasture). Urban areas cover 6% of the catchment. Woodland accounts for 5% of land cover and other features, such as water bodies, cover the remaining 1%. Farming in the area is predominantly intensive arable. This is due to the fertility of the lowland soils. In these areas, land use is dependent on the activities of IDBs and Environment Agency. The IDBs operate drainage ditches and pumping stations. The Environment Agency maintains lowland water courses which carry drainage water and flows from higher ground. Regeneration investment is focusing on the communities of Grimsby and Cleethorpes. This means there is likely to be significant development in these towns.

180

Louth has also been identified as a focus for additional housing and economic development. Hydrology The Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment contains the following watercourses: Winterton Beck, River Ancholme and tributaries, Barton Haven/Butts Drain, Barrow Beck, East Halton Beck, Stallingborough North Beck, Old Fleet Drain, River Freshney/Laceby Beck, Buck Beck, Skitter Beck, Waithe Beck, River Lud, and many other smaller watercourses. The catchment also includes the south bank of the Humber Estuary. Chalk streams drain off the Lincolnshire Wolds. These form the headwaters of all sub-catchments in the area. All rivers drain either into the Humber Estuary or directly into the North Sea, via tidal sluices or pumping stations. Most watercourse pass through very low-lying fenland in the bottom reaches of their sub-catchments. They often have raised banks and are pumped to support agricultural production. The River Ancholme is navigable from the Humber to Bishopbridge, a distance of approximately 30km. The river is predominantly used for recreational navigation. Rainfall in this catchment is low. It is approximately two thirds of the UK average, and approximately half of the volume that the wettest regions of the UK receive. The average rainfall pattern varies within the catchment with the highest rainfall occurring over the Lincolnshire Wolds (750-800mm/year) and the lowest next to the Humber (550-600mm/year). Coastal erosion Various places along the South Humber bank are affected by erosion. Locations between Winteringham Ings, South Ferriby and Barton Cliff are particularly prone to erosion. The coastline between Grimsby and south of Donna Nook is currently accumulating more material and growing (accreting). It includes wide inter-tidal sand flats. Extensive mature salt marsh exists between Tetney Haven and Donna Nook. The salt marsh is sheltered by the wide sand flats. In some areas, along this coast, sand dunes have formed. The Humber Estuary is extremely dynamic, with the general trend being towards erosion and loss of land. There is also occasional, short-duration accretion in isolated areas. Erosion and loss of land is likely to increase with sea level rise as a result of climate change. The natural environment Ecological diversity is recognised by a suite of national designations, including an AONB and 2,255 SSSIs such as Far Ings NNR and Saltfleetby Theddlethorpe Dunes. The Humber, an internationally-protected Ramsar site, SPA and SAC is located to the north and east of the catchment. The WFD The RBMP has identified a number of issues around water quality and biodiversity that also impact on flood risk management. Within watercourses, silt build-up and excessive nutrients from agriculture are exacerbated by sewage treatment works and private sewerage systems. Silt can cause a particular difficulty with regard to flood risk management in the highly- modified lowland watercourses making costly and potentially environmentally damaging silt removal necessary.

181

Low flows and high summer temperatures make these problems worse. Nutrients can disturb the natural balance of a watercourse and cause excessive growth of vegetation and algae. This reduces the ability of the lowland watercourses to efficiently pass flood flows and requires expensive vegetation management. This is a particular issue on the River Ancholme. The legacy of drainage works on large stretches of rivers and dykes has created poor habitat in some areas. Obstructions from weirs and flood defence works prevent some species of fish and eels from spawning and migrating. Many lowland watercourses are no longer connected to their floodplains as a result of built embankments. The Ancholme Valley is an important movement corridor for migratory birds. This would need to be considered during planning of future flood risk management activities in this area. The historic environment There are 476ha of SAMs in the catchment. These are well distributed across the area. They range from churches to the sites of medieval villages and castles. Examples include; Hibaldstow Mill (Hibaldstow North Drain), Packhorse Bridge (River Rase), Thornton Abbey (East Halton Beck), Motte and Bailey castles (Barrow Beck), Village Cross (Barrow Beck), Thornholme Augustine Priory (West Drain, lower Ancholme) and Ferriby Sluice (lower Ancholme). There is also the packhorse bridge in Utterby in the Louth Canal catchment. English Heritage has the responsibility for designating buildings of historic or archaeological value as Listed Buildings. This listing is broken into three categories. These range from Grade I – buildings of exceptional interest, Grade II*, particularly important buildings of more than special interest and Grade II buildings which are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them. There are a total of 1,628 Listed Buildings within the catchment. These are distributed across the entire area but tend to be located in settlements. In addition, there are 6 Registered Parks and Gardens. These are: Brocklesby Park, Fillingham Castle, People’s Park, Grimsby, Well Hall, Harrington Hall and Gunby Hall, as well as one Registered Battlefield, Battle of Winceby. Within the river valley floodplains, many of the sites contain well-preserved archaeological remains, many of which will be of national importance. Previous excavations in and around South Ferriby and Brigg have demonstrated the archaeological potential from the Roman period on. This is particularly true of Brigg. Any changes to either the water table or water quality may affect the preservation of vulnerable organic archaeological deposits. History of flooding The Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment has a long history of flooding. On the 5th December 2013, many of communities along the coast and south Humber bank were flooded by the largest tidal surge ever recorded in this location. The tidal surge in 2013 was by no means an isolated event, with flooding from various sources (rivers, heavy rainfall and the sea) occurring throughout the preceding 100 years. Some notable flood events in the catchment include: January/February 1953 which saw the effects of a spring tide combined with the effects of large low pressure system in the North Sea causing a large storm and exceptional high tides that resulted in the flooding of many low lying coastal regions on the east coast of Britain. There were a number of areas affected in the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment including: Cleethorpes, East Halton Beck and the Barton Broads between Barton-upon-Humber and Barrow.

182

In 1905 heavy rainfall was quoted as “causing several inundations in North Lincolnshire”. Events in 1912 were reported as causing lowland flooding for some days with some properties affected. The 1948 event was said to have been of “almost tropical intensity” with widespread flooding across Grimsby and Cleethorpes. In 1981 an event flooded 2500ha in the Ancholme valley for six weeks, particularly areas at Brandy Wharf, Waddingham, South Kelsey and North Kelsey. The flooding was caused by a breach in the banks of the River Ancholme just upstream of Brandy Wharf, two breaches in Sallow Row Drain and two at North Kelsey. Substantial overtopping of the River Rase flooded 120 houses and some industry in Market Rasen and Middle Rasen. The A631 was closed at Bishopbridge. The AEP of the 1981 Ancholme flood event has been estimated at 2%. The catchment was already saturated before a storm over the Wolds happened bringing a total of 131mm of rain at North Willingham. The flooding that occurred in the summer of 2007 caused extensive flooding in nearly all parts of the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment. The flooding that occurred was caused by prolonged rainfall saturating the catchment followed by a short period of extremely heavy rainfall. Louth experienced the greatest impact during the June 2007 event. Initially the urban drainage capacity was exceeded causing flooding of low-lying roads and properties, followed by the River Lud overtopping its banks. In Louth, 107 properties were flooded and people were evacuated by lifeboats. There was damage to a large number of other properties in the area. In Grimsby there were 90 properties that were affected by fluvial flooding from the River Freshney exceeding the design standard of the storage area. There were many more properties affected by surface water caused by drains backing up and overflowing. In West and Middle Rasen there were three properties that suffered fluvial flooding from the River Rase and 36 further properties suffering from surface water and flooding from ordinary water courses. On the River Ancholme in the village of Waddingham, two properties were flooded by overtopping of Waddingham Catchwater, with a further 16 properties suffering from surface water and overspill from OWs. Brandy Wharf only one property was flooded but there was extensive flooding of agricultural land as a result of the River Ancholme overtopping its banks. In Immingham 282 properties suffered internal flooding from surface water. More recently in 2014, over 100 properties were affected by surface water flooding in Grimsby. Louth Flood Alleviation Scheme There are approximately 355 properties in Louth at risk of flooding from the River Lud. The river flows west to east through the town and is heavily engineered through the town centre. Water levels in the River Lud rise rapidly meaning there is little opportunity for adequate flood warning. The town flooded in 2007 and there is a history of flooding going back beyond 1920, when 23 people died in a catastrophic flash flood. The Environment Agency, Lincolnshire County Council, East Lindsey District Council, Lindsey Marsh IDB and Louth Town Council are working together to fund the construction and future maintenance of FAS for the town. Two flood storage reservoirs will be built upstream of Louth to reduce the risk of flooding from the River Lud. The schemes are either within or very close to the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB. The Environment Agency has been working closely with the Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service, Natural England, English Heritage and others to balance the needs of wildlife and the environment with the need to reduce flood risk to communities.

183

Planning permission was granted for the £6.5-million Louth scheme on 21st April 2015. Since then, tracks have been upgraded to allow access to the sites for construction traffic, vegetation has been removed where necessary and signboards have been erected. Work is due to complete during 2016. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea There are more than 20,000 people at high to moderate (greater than a 1 in 100 chance) risk of flooding from the rivers and sea in this catchment. River - or fluvial - flooding from the River Ancholme, coastal tributaries and the River Lud affect areas including Brigg and Louth. Embanked watercourses in lowland areas may be at risk of overtopping or breaching. Flooding from the Sea Tidal flooding could inundate coastal communities and the towns of Winteringham, South Ferriby, Barton upon Humber, Immingham, Humberston (Fitties), Grimsby and Cleethorpes. Overtopping and breaching of embankments is a particular concern because of the presence of communities behind the flood banks. The Environment Agency has prepared ‘breach hazard maps’ to ensure developers and emergency planners have the best available information on the risk to people.

184

Figure 54: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment

185

Table 37: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 275,650 3900 16,400 22,650 45,000 No of services: 630 30 80 40 60

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential 43,700 1,000 3,900 2,850 4,700 properties: No of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 260 <10 <10 <10 10 Railway (km): 140 <10 20 10 20 Agricultural land (ha): 132,700 9,100 12,800 5,050 2,400

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations 80 17 13 10 6 within 50m: SAC (ha): 1,650 100 50 <50 <50 SPA (ha): 1,850 150 200 <50 <50 RAMSAR site (ha): 1,850 150 200 <50 <50 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 2,250 150 200 <50 <50 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,600 <50 <50 <50 <50 SAMs (ha): 500 <50 <50 <50 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 1,630 40 80 40 80 No of Licensed water 480 120 60 20 40 abstractions:

Flooding from local sources Surface water and sewer flooding affect the catchment. Louth, Grimsby, Immingham and West and Middle Rasen have all experienced surface water flooding in recent years. The Environment Agency Flood Maps for Surface Water Flooding show many areas at risk across the catchment. Groundwater flooding is also an issue. Rainfall will readily soak into the permeable chalk of the Wolds, and emerge again in streams and rivers or as springs. There is a risk of groundwater flooding in coastal areas and parts of the Ancholme Valley. This is caused by high water levels in the chalk, which force springs up out of the ground at lower levels. Groundwater levels within the lowland area are normally kept artificially low by the activities of the IDBs. As a result, the risk of groundwater flooding in the lowlands is currently low.

186

Figure 55: Flooding from surface water: Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment

187

Flooding from reservoirs There are some large raised reservoirs within the catchment. These are used for water supply, irrigation, boating and flood storage. These are mainly located within the Ancholme Valley, with only a few located to the east of the catchment. The Environment Agency maintains two flood storage reservoirs that protect Grimsby and Market Rasen. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show approximately 2,500 people at risk of flooding should one of the reservoirs within the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme Catchment fail. Table 38: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 275,650 2,550 No of services: 630 50

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 43,700 950 No of airports: 1 0 Roads (km): 260 <10 Railway (km): 140 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 132,700 6,050

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 80 1 SAC (ha): 1,650 <50 SPA (ha): 1,850 <50 RAMSAR site (ha): 1,850 <50 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 2,250 <50 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,600 0 SAMs (ha): 500 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 1,630 30 No of Licensed water abstractions: 480 20

188

Figure 56: Flooding from reservoirs: Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment

189

Coastal erosion Various places along the South Humber bank are affected by erosion. Locations between Winteringham Ings, South Ferriby and Barton Cliff are particularly prone to erosion. The coastline between Grimsby and south of Donna Nook is currently accumulating more material and growing (accreting). It includes wide inter-tidal sand flats. Extensive mature salt marsh exists between Tetney Haven and Donna Nook. The salt marsh is sheltered by the wide sand flats. In some areas, along this coast, sand dunes have formed. The Humber Estuary is extremely dynamic, with the general trend being towards erosion and loss of land. There is also occasional, short-duration accretion in isolated areas. Erosion and loss of land is likely to increase with sea level rise as a result of climate change. Partnership working Within the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme Catchment we have developed a good working relationship with our partners. There are three LLFAs: Lincolnshire County Council, North Lincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Council. All three are working with us to develop and progress their flood risk management strategies incorporating new flood hazard mapping and data. There are three IDBs within the catchment. These are the Shire Group (covering the Winterton Beck and the River Ancholme), North East Lindsey and Lindsey Marsh. We work with all of these to help them develop their programme of capital upgrade works for flood risk management. The IDBs and the Environment Agency have jointly prepared a Public Sector Cooperation Agreement that allows both parties to undertake works on the others’ behalf, should it be more efficient and cost effective for them to do so. The Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment also benefits from the existence of the Lincolnshire Flood Risk and Drainage Management Partnership, through which RMA partners meet and communicate to co-ordinate our approach to flood risk management. The partnership includes Lincolnshire County Council, the IDBs mentioned above plus district councils, the RFCCs, the Lincolnshire Resilience Forum, Anglian Water, Severn Trent Water and Natural England. There are also two sub catchment partnerships operating within this area. The Ancholme Rivers Trust focuses on improving the catchment environment for river users such as boaters, anglers and canoeists. The Lincolnshire Chalk Streams partnership is an established partnership that has been working on the ecologically important Lincolnshire chalk streams for 10 years. Their focus is co-ordinating improvements to the water environment for conservation purposes. Each partnership involves a mix of local authorities, recreational groups, Environment Agency, Anglian Water and conservation bodies such as the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. The Environment Agency also works with private organisations, where this approach can be of mutual benefit. An example of this in the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment is the Grimsby Docks project where ‘partnership contributions’ from Associated British Ports and North East Lincolnshire Council have allowed the community and the port to be protected from tidal flooding. Grimsby Docks Flood Management Scheme – Working in Partnership A total of 2,500m of flood defences within Grimsby docks needed improving to reduce the risk of flooding to more than 14,000 homes and other infrastructure in the town. The area at risk of flooding includes some of the most deprived areas in the

190

UK. Once completed, the scheme will reduce tidal flood risk to 1 in 200 in any one year for more than 14,000 homes and businesses. The scheme was recommended to receive part of the special Growth and Acceleration Fund. Associated British Ports (ABP) and North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) have contributed towards its cost. Construction of the first phase of the works started in May 2013. Grimsby Docks is being extensively redeveloped with new facilities for car imports, fish processing and high technology industries supporting the offshore wind farms. There are nearly 300,000m2 of land allocated for new industrial development. There is a similar area of existing development which may be regenerated in the short term. NELC has aspirations for redevelopment of other significant areas in both Grimsby and Cleethorpes, within the area served by the defences. While developing the scheme, discussions with ABP and NELC identified an opportunity to work in partnership to deliver benefits wider than flood risk management. Grimsby is located on the internationally-protected Humber Estuary. We are therefore required by law to replace the mudflat and salt marsh lost due to our flood risk management works and the impacts of climate change. Our Donna Nook managed realignment scheme will provide this replacement habitat. Conclusions and objectives for the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment While the population is relatively small for the land area covered by the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment, the combination of low-lying fenland and coastal floodplain means that around 1/3 of residents are at some risk of flooding from either rivers or the sea. The heavily modified nature of the catchment introduces further man-made risk in the form of embanked watercourses and loss of floodplain. There is a risk of breaching of these raised embankments and a need for continuous maintenance and operation of structures and pumps to ensure flooding doesn't occur. It is estimated that there are almost 88,000 people at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, with nearly 4000 of these at the highest level of flood risk. Other sources of flooding from reservoirs, surface water, ordinary watercourse, groundwater and sewers are also significant in this catchment. There have been many reported incidents of these types of problems affecting householders and businesses in recent years. The surface water flood maps, which were updated in December 2013, show a widespread problem. While the area has some challenging flooding problems to address, the amount of undeveloped land available in the catchment means there is space to adopt new techniques and practices to alleviate these problems. The importance of the area for food production does however need to be considered when planning new approaches to managing flooding. The national importance of Immingham Docks, where, for example, much of the coal used to fuel the nation’s power stations arrives in the country, must also be taken into account Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 39 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information

191

Table 39: Relevant objectives: Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment

Reference Objective Relevant? SOC 1 Understanding Flood Risk and Working in Partnership  SOC 2 Community Preparedness and Resilience  SOC 3 Reduce Community Disruption  SOC 4 Flood Risk and Development  SOC 5 Reduce risk to people  ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  Measures across the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment 65 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment. A summary of measures based on protection, prevention and preparedness is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. There are 22 protection measures and these include:  the construction or improvement of tidal defences along the South Humber Bank at places such as Winteringham Ings, South Ferriby and Grimsby  providing increased flood plain storage for flood water in the Ancholme Valley  repairing and maintaining flood defence assets throughout the catchment  an ongoing scheme to protect against fluvial flooding in Louth, which comprises two flood storage areas being constructed, upstream of the town There are also a number of actions for the three LLFAs who operate in this area (Lincolnshire County Council, North Lincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Council) to protect against local sources of flood risk through their local FRMPs. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use 22 measures associated with the prevention of damage caused by floods have been identified in the catchment. Prevention measures include:  managed realignment of defences, making space for flood water and creating habitat  undertaking further investigations to understand the extent and mechanisms of

192

flooding from surface water, ground water and OWs  through the Environment Agency’s role as a statutory planning consultee, seek to ensure that new developments are located in areas of lowest flood risk and do not increase flood risk to others. Where possible seek reductions in flood risk as a result of development  review and implement the Environment Agency’s System Asset Management Plans  using new and improved modelling and mapping of flood risk, identify priority communities with whom we can work to reduce their risk  establish a scheme offering property level protection to isolated properties, who are unlikely to benefit from a community flood risk reduction scheme Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood 12 measures have been identified that deliver preparedness. These include:  Maintaining and operating the Environment Agency’s flood warning system  Working with the LRF to implement multi-agency flood plans to ensure a robust response during flooding incidents  Improving flood maps as better data becomes available  Undertaking rapid coastal zone assessment surveys  Reviewing data on sea level rise, and updating our plans accordingly  The preparation of strategy studies for future management of the coast  Working with partners to implement SMP policies  Climate change adaptation review  Monitoring of intertidal habitat change Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population There are no measures proposed over and above existing flood risk work.

193

3.10. The Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The River Trent dominates this management catchment as it travels 174km from the Derbyshire/Staffordshire boundary before meeting the River Ouse and Humber in North Lincolnshire. The River Trent drains an area of approximately 10,500km2 in total. This includes the other management catchments such as the Dove, Derwent and Soar, which all drain into the River Trent. The western edge of this catchment picks up parts of South Derby, before the Rivers Derwent and Soar join on the Nottinghamshire border. Immediately upstream of Nottingham the River Erewash meets the River Trent at Attenborough. This catchment is approximately 200km2 and drains significant urban areas of Ilkeston, Heanor and Sandiacre. The River Leen, draining a predominantly urban area of 120km2 meets the River Trent just upstream of The Meadows. Once through the urban landscape of Nottingham, the Trent Valley returns to a green landscape, dotted with villages such as Gunthorpe and Lowdham. At Newark-on- Trent the River Devon that drains 385km2 of rural north Leicestershire and south Nottinghamshire meets with the River Trent. At Cromwell Lock, just north of Newark, the tidal limit of the River Trent begins, although its influence in terms of flood risk is not significant at this point. A series of flood embankments follow the meandering line of the Trent as it heads northwards. The River Trent becomes more tidally dominant at Gainsborough, and flood embankments become noticeably larger structures as the Trent picks up the drainage from the Idle and Torne catchment before its confluence with the River Humber at Trent Falls. Topography Land levels are around 42mAOD at the upstream limit of the catchment, and over the length of the 174km of River Trent the gradient is gentle down to the Humber confluence which is at sea level. The head of the Erewash catchment is the most elevated part of the catchment at 170-180mAOD, while the adjacent River Leen catchment rises to a level of 150-160mAOD. The Day Brook is a small urbanised catchment in Nottingham that drains into the River Leen. Land levels are 130mAOD at the head of the catchment, and over a short length of catchment this creates the steepest catchment within the Lower Trent and Erewash catchment

194

Figure 57: Overview map of the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment

195

Geology and soils Geology has a strong influence on how a catchment responds to rainfall. The degree to which material allows water to percolate through it, the ‘permeability’, influences the extent of overland flow and, therefore, how a watercourse responds to rainfall. The sandstone areas are more permeable, the steeper slopes can dominate and promote rapid surface run-off. By comparison, the more dominant mudstone rocks have a high clay content and are less permeable. Triassic mudstones dominate the geology within the River Trent catchment, and being relatively soft these have been eroded over thousands of years to form the wide flat valleys of the River Trent and its tributaries. These mudstones extend from the upper catchments of the Trent, Tame, Dove and Soar along the course of the River Trent through to its estuarine area in the northeast. Carboniferous Coal Measures, a series of discontinuous water bearing sandstone horizons subdivided by impermeable shales, mudstones and coal seams along with the Permian Marls and the Lower Magnesian Limestone outcrop to the northwest of Nottingham. Sherwood Sandstone outcrops under the western part of Nottingham and also to the north of the city. Recent drift deposits, including sands, gravels, silts and clays, commonly overlie these strata throughout the area. They can be glacial in origin but alluvial deposits associated with river systems, and the River Trent in particular, are a more dominant feature. Both the Lower Magnesian Limestone and the Sherwood Sandstone sequences are classified as major aquifers. The Sherwood Sandstone aquifer is capable of supporting large abstractions for both private and public water supplies due to its high permeability. In and around the City of Nottingham, groundwater levels within the sandstone are rising as a result of decreased abstraction. However, immediately to the north, groundwater levels are still dropping as a result of abstraction. Land use and land management Over 1.2 million people live in the Lower Trent and Erewash catchment. The densest area of population is the Nottingham conurbation which expands to include the lower Erewash catchment. Other significant urban areas that lie within the catchment include parts of south Derby, Newark, Gainsborough and Scunthorpe in the north of the catchment. Beyond these areas of urban concentration the remainder of the catchment can be characterised as rural. The land in the lower Trent area is mainly used for arable farming. Agricultural improvements have diminished biodiversity of the natural floodplain of the lower Trent. In most areas the floodplain is no longer naturally linked to the river due to engineered flood defences and river channels which protect this land from flooding. In some places this has led to the significant decline of biodiversity. Upstream from the Trent’s tidal limit, the land is rolling and has a mix of pastoral and arable farming. The low-lying nature of the land means that land drainage is an important issue, and the current land-use depends on the continued work of the IDBs. Much of the slightly raised land, which runs northwards from Nottingham along the western side of the River Trent catchment, is forested with areas of parkland, heathland and rough grazing. The lower reaches of the Trent are important to the national economy for their extensive mineral workings. Towards Cromwell Weir the floodplain is much narrower and has a number of active gravel and sand workings close to the river. The Trent valley, through Derbyshire and around Nottingham also has a number of active or

196

restored sand and gravel sites. Beckingham Marshes on the west side of the river is periodically used for flood storage. This area performs an important flood risk function along the tidal Trent and in particular to the town of Gainsborough. This area covers approximately 488ha. The Environment Agency is working with the RSPB to improve the biodiversity value of the Marshes whilst accommodating other land uses such as grazing and to a lesser extent for arable farming. Hydrology The Trent flows through the low-lying agricultural grassland of the Trent floodplain, to the south of Derby before meeting several major tributaries that join in quick succession, upstream of Nottingham. The Sherwood sandstone and Triassic mudstone in this reach results in a moderate run-off response to rainfall. The River Erewash rises near Kirkby-in-Ashfield and flows southward through an increasingly urbanised catchment to join the River Trent at Attenborough Nature Reserve near Nottingham. The catchment is fairly steeply sloping in its upper reaches but flattens out towards the Trent. The catchment comprises a mixture of limestone, mudstone and coal measures, overlain by loamy soils which result in moderately high run-off. Mining of the coal measures in the catchment has disturbed the natural processes of erosion and deposition in the catchment. This has increased the transportation of sediment particularly during high flows. Immediately downstream of the River Soar confluence the River Trent passes through the city of Nottingham where the channel is confined and heavily defended due to the high flood risk owing to large flows coming from upstream. Flood storage is provided by a series of lakes (flooded gravel workings), that make up Attenborough Nature Reserve and lakes in the country parks around the Colwick area. Within Nottingham the Trent is joined from the north by the River Leen (121km2) which drains the permeable Sherwood sandstone of Nottingham including part of the Sherwood Forest further north. The Sherwood sandstone represents a Nationally Important Aquifer and although this is a permeable catchment, urbanisation of much of the catchment has increased the run-off response to rainfall. Downstream of Nottingham the Trent flows through a flat rural landscape with little urbanisation and small tributaries joining the watercourse. The channel becomes much wider and flatter and flood storage is provided adjacent to the watercourse in the form of several ponds in former sand and gravel pits. The geology in the floodplain is Triassic mudstone but slightly to the north a large band of Sherwood sandstone runs almost parallel to the watercourse north east from Nottingham. The dominance of mudstone in this part of the catchment results in a relatively small runoff response to rainfall (approximately 25%). The only major tributary in this reach is the River Devon (385km2), which rises near Branston and flows northeast, to join the Trent at Newark-on-Trent. It is a flat rural catchment with its headwaters on clayey soil shared and as such it responds quite quickly to rainfall. This reach of the Trent from Newark to Trent Falls is extremely flat. With the exception of Gainsborough and Scunthorpe it is a largely rural reach of the catchment predominantly in agricultural use with some brackish flood meadows and a number of small villages. The channel is very wide and meanders through a wide floodplain although the catchment in this reach is quite narrow with mudstones overlain by loam making up the floodplain and small pockets of sandstone on the edges of the catchment. The result is quite a high run-off response to rainfall in this reach but owing to the size of the Trent in this lower reach and the amount of water already in the channel from the large tributaries upstream, run-off is likely to have a limited influence on water levels and flood flows.

197

Despite the local run-off response not having a significant effect on water level and flood flows in the Trent, the extremely low-lying, flat nature of the catchment means that rainfall is retained in the soil and commonly ponds on the catchment rather than running-off into the channel. This leaves the loam soils waterlogged for long periods, particularly during the winter. This low-lying land is then easily inundated and difficult to drain. When combined with high flows coming down the channel and high tides in the Humber Estuary preventing discharge, this can result in severe flooding. Although not part of the River Trent catchment, the River Witham is connected to the River Trent at Torksey Lock by the Foss Dyke canal. This 18km length of water way provides a navigable route from the Trent to Lincoln. The height difference between the two water bodies is approximately 5m at mean high water on the tidal River Trent. Even when in flood, the River Trent is prevented from spilling into the Foss Dyke canal by gates and embankments. The natural environment The Tidal Trent corridor is an area of European importance in terms of conservation. This area is noted for its presence of important habitats and species there are 318ha of RAMSAR and SAC, along with 265ha designated as SPA. This area of the tidal Trent links to the wider Humber Estuary. Given the location of these designated sites, it is of no surprise that the majority of these areas lie at high flood risk, as their environmental status is dependent upon regular inundation. There are approximately 1900ha of SSSI within the catchment, of which just under half of the area is at some level of flood risk. There are two NNRs within the catchment at Calke Park in Derbyshire and Muston Meadows, on the River Devon. There are a further 68 LNRs which include the likes of Wollaton Park in Nottingham and Sharphill Wood in West Bridgford. The historic environment To the north and west of Nottingham there is evidence of the legacy that deep and open cast mining has brought to the area. The impact of open cast mining on surface water runoff can increase the rate of runoff, following the restoration of a site. There are 719 SAMs within the catchment. These monuments range from tourist attractions such as Nottingham Castle, the Caves of Nottingham, to Papplewick Pumping Station. As well as these, there are a large number of Listed Buildings (around 4,800) and conservations areas within the management catchment. As with local environmental designations, their importance is recognised and they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding The 1947 flood event, the most severe in the last century, acted as a catalyst for the construction of the present flood defences throughout the Trent catchment. Major flood alleviation works were constructed to defend the main conurbations along the main River Trent corridor, defending areas along the left bank of the Trent such as Beeston, The Meadows, Nottingham and Colwick, and areas along the right bank of the Trent defending Wilford, West Bridgford and Holme Pierrepont. There are further defences for the village of Barton in Fabis. The works included the construction of Colwick Sluices, completed in 1953, and two years later the flood defences were finished. The scale of the work required throughout the rest of the catchment however, meant that not all the defences were completed as quickly, and many of the current defences were actually completed in the 1960s and early 1970s. The majority of these defences were designed at the time to provide protection from flooding with an AEP flood event of up to 1%. Rural areas, particularly downstream of

198

Nottingham and along the tidal section of the Trent, had for many years been defended by two sets of embankments. The first are small raised earth embankments set close to the river (within 10m), to protect farmland against frequent flooding. The second much larger embankments are designed to protect inhabited areas and are generally set much further away from the river, up to 1.5km in places. This arrangement provides extensive areas of flood storage on the floodplain, whilst protecting the many villages and towns in the area. The exception to this is the last 37km of river below Gainsborough, where the major embankments are very close to the river with no provision for washlands. As well as flood defences, flood warning has operated on the River Trent for many years to reduce flood risk. A range of systems have been in operation for various parts of catchments operated by us and our predecessor, the National Rivers Authority, the Water Authorities and even as far back as the River Boards during the early 1960s. Although it is difficult to predict flooding in the upper catchment parts because of the rapid response of the smaller and urbanised catchments, the lower reaches of the Trent can benefit from relatively accurate forecasts, with good lead- times based on upstream water levels. The Day Brook catchment in Nottingham is defined as a rapid response catchment and this presents a real challenge in terms of flood warning. Intense summer rainfall can result in almost instantaneous overflow into the small areas of floodplain. There was severe tidal flooding happens as a result of tidal surges, in March 1954 when a low pressure system over the North Sea combined with a spring tide to create very high water levels in the river. This resulted in simultaneous overtopping of flood banks along much of the tidal stretch, with breaching in several locations. The majority of the embankments along the tidal Trent were renewed as part of the 1960 Tidal Trent Comprehensive scheme. The standard of protection provided by these embankments range from 0.5% AEP flood event of failing for some of the critical areas such as Gainsborough, down to a 2% or 3% AEP flood event of failing in rural areas. On 23rd July 2013, the area around the north and east of Nottingham was affected by extremely intense rainfall, leading to flash flooding of a number of communities. Analysis of this storm suggests that in localised areas the amount of rainfall and its intensity were in excess of a 1% AEP. A series of thunderstorms in the preceding 24 hours and the prolonged dry weather in the weeks leading up to 23rd July worsened the effects of the storm. Surface water storage systems struggled to cope with earlier rainfall and the dry and baked ground promoted rapid surface water runoff. It is estimated that over 500 properties were affected by internal flooding. The majority of the flooding appears to have been related to surface water and OWs, although there were complex interactions with Main Rivers and the sewer network. Communities such as Southwell and Lowdham were badly affected by this event. Both the Environment Agency and the LLFA have begun to investigate opportunities to improving flood risk management provision for these communities. In December 2013, a tidal surge on the East Coast of England, coupled with seasonally high tides, resulted in overtopping of flood defences along the River Trent. Although the overtopping only lasted for a few hours, communities adjacent to these flood defences were flooded from the Humber confluence as far upstream as Gainsborough.

199

Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea Approximately 160,000 people in the Lower Trent and Erewash catchment live at a level of flood risk that varies from very low flood risk through to higher levels of flood risk. This includes people that live at lower flood risk levels, behind flood defences, as there is a residual risk of flooding from overtopping or failure of the defence. Over 100km of railway is at risk of flooding within the catchment, along with nearly 140km of highways. Recent flood defence improvements in Nottingham have improved the standard of flood protection for over 16,000 homes, however many communities within the River Trent Floodplain remain undefended or with a reduced standard of protection. Nottingham Flood Alleviation Scheme In September 2012 the Nottingham FAS was officially opened. The scheme stretches along a 27km length of the River Trent from Sawley to Colwick and will protect 16,000 homes and businesses as well as roads and factories at the heart of communities. It is the biggest individual inland flood defence scheme ever built in terms of properties protected. As part of the scheme major environmental improvements have been undertaken, including the creation of nearly 7ha of new, high quality habitat in and around the Attenborough Nature Reserve, an SSSI. The habitat includes reed beds, wet woodland, wet meadow and grazing meadow. Facilities have also been provided for the public to enjoy the natural habitat. The scheme was funded by Defra and built by the Environment Agency, working closely with the local community, Nottingham City Council, Natural England and other local partners. Several communities that lie alongside River Trent tributaries have experienced flooding in recent years. These include Langley Mill and Pinxton in Derbyshire, Woodborough, Lowdham and Rolleston to the east of Nottingham, Old Basford in Nottingham, Bottesford in Leicestershire and Scotter in Lincolnshire. As referred to earlier, the largest tidal surge ever recorded in the River Trent resulted in flooding to several riverside communities in 2013. Overtopping of the tidal defences affected the town of Gainsborough, Gunness, Keadby, Burringham, Burton Stather, Althorpe, East Butterwick and West Butterwick.

200

Figure 58: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment

201

Table 40: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low risk catchment Risk to people No of people: 1,211,250 4,700 36,700 96,600 21,850 No of services: 2,040 60 120 220 40

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential 111,950 1,700 6,900 11,750 1,500 properties: No of airports: 0 - - - - Roads (km): 680 20 40 70 <10 Railway (km): 320 10 30 70 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 182,400 10,300 22,500 15,650 300

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated 0 - - - - bathing waters within 50m: No of EPR installations 90 3 18 23 0 within 50m: SAC (ha): 300 300 <50 <50 0 SPA (ha): 250 250 <50 <50 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 300 300 <50 <50 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 1850 550 150 50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2400 100 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 700 <50 50 50 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 4,770 140 320 310 40 No of Licensed water 760 210 220 80 <10 abstractions:

Flooding from local sources Surface water and sewer flooding affect the catchment. Crowle, Scunthorpe, Southwell, Lowdham, Hucknall, and parts of the City of Nottingham are amongst areas to have all suffered from surface water flooding over the past 2 years. Our Flood Maps for Surface Water Flooding show many areas at risk across the catchment. Groundwater flooding is also an issue in parts of the City of Nottingham. The gradual decline of water intensive industry has seen the water table rise with particular issues around the Old Basford area of the city. Ground water levels within the lowland areas are normally kept artificially low by the drainage activities of the IDBs, and so while this management activity continues the risk of groundwater flooding in the lowlands is low.

202

Figure 59: Flooding from surface water: Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment

203

Flooding from reservoirs There are some large raised reservoirs within the catchment, used for water supply, irrigation, boating and flood storage. Our recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show around 54,550 people at risk from flooding resulting from failure of a reservoir within the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment. A combined total of 40km of railway and highway would be affected along with 8,750 ha of agricultural land by reservoir failure. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 41: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 1,211,250 54,550 No of services: 2,040 140

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 111,950 5,550 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 680 20 Railway (km): 320 20 Agricultural land (ha): 182,400 8,750

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 90 1 SAC (ha): 300 <50 SPA (ha): 250 <50 RAMSAR site (ha): 300 <50 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 1850 250 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2400 150 SAMs (ha): 700 50 No of Listed Buildings: 4,770 310 No of Licensed water abstractions: 760 180

204

Figure 60: Flooding from reservoirs: Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment

205

Partnership working Within the Lower Trent and Erewash Catchment we have developed a good working relationship with our partners. The LLFA covering this catchment include Lincolnshire County Council, North Lincolnshire Council, Derbyshire County Council, Nottingham City Council, Leicestershire County Council and Nottinghamshire County Council. All are working to develop and progress their LFRMS incorporating new flood hazard mapping and data. The IDBs within the catchment include Scunthorpe and Gainsborough Water Management Board, Trent Valley IDB, Fairham Brook IDB and Isle of Nottinghamshire Water Level Management Board. The Environment Agency works with all of these to help them develop their programme of capital upgrade works for flood risk management. The IDBs and the Environment Agency have jointly prepared a Public Sector Cooperation Arrangement that allows both parties to undertake works on the others’ behalf, should it be more efficient and cost effective for them to do so. Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council have established a Strategic Flood Board to cover the county and city area. The Board works with the Environment Agency, IDB’s and local councillors. Conclusions and objectives for the Lower Trent and Erewash catchment The Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment covers an area of approximately 2,050km2 with a population of approximately 1.2 million people. The River Trent dominates this management catchment that begins on the Derbyshire/Staffordshire boundary and heads northwards before meeting the River Humber a further 174km downstream. The River Trent crosses a green wide valley before it meets the urban conurbation of Nottingham. It once again continues along a green valley until it reaches its tidal extent at Cromwell Weir, just to the north of Newark-on-Trent. The tidal influence becomes greater as the River Trent continues downstream towards Gainsborough, in Lincolnshire, and becomes increasingly constrained by embankments adjacent to the River Trent. Downstream of Gainsborough the River Trent becomes a very wide channel that is tidally dominated from a flood risk perspective. The Erewash catchment lies to the west of Nottingham and the River Erewash forms the actual boundary between the counties of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire for much of its length. The Erewash forms about 200km2 of the total Lower Trent and Erewash catchment. This catchment is quite heavily urbanised and has a history of opencast and deep mining. The land use of this catchment contributes to a more rapid response from the river to rainfall, as opposed to the slower responding River Trent. The Trent Valley has a history and on-going relationship with sand and gravel extraction. Sand and gravel works can have a localised impact on flood risk and the Environment Agency has to work with Mineral Planning Authorities and site operators to ensure that flood risk is managed without increasing the risk of flooding to others. Once the mineral is extracted from these sites the restoration of the land can provide potential benefits from both a flood risk and a biodiversity aspect. When the lifespan of a sand and gravel is coming to an end, it is important to explore any opportunities to help improve flood risk and biodiversity. Across the management catchment area it is estimated that around 160,000 people live at the risk of flooding from rivers alone. This does not include those people that live at other sources of flood risk such as surface water. In July 2013 parts of Nottinghamshire were subjected to a series of significant storms that caused

206

widespread flooding to residential properties in Southwell and Lowdham. The main source of flooding came from surface water runoff, as well as some OW flooding. During this same series of storms a number of properties were flooded in the centre of Nottingham and many of the transport links across the city were disrupted by water collecting and flowing across main highways. This indicates the significance of surface water flooding within the catchment, and is supported by Environment Agency mapping that indicates surface water flooding problems within the city. In response to this recent flood event the LLFA’s involved are looking at tackling flood risk in Southwell and around hotspots within the city of Nottingham, whilst the Environment Agency are looking at options to improve flood risk management in the village of Lowdham. Only a few months later the north of the catchment area was subject to flooding when a large tidal surge combined with high seasonal tides overtopped major defences on the River Trent between the Humber confluence and the town of Gainsborough. The flood defences were overtopped for around two hours which affected communities that lived on the landward side of these defences. These separate events highlight the wide range of flood risks within a catchment that can occur within a short period of time. Historically the River Trent has had a number of major flood events, of which 1947 stands out as one as the most significant. Large parts of Nottingham were affected during this event and there was major flooding throughout the valley. This led to the construction of major flood defences in Nottingham and along the River Trent that were only completed by the early 1970’s. The wide variety of flooding across the catchment, as well as the variety of interested partners requires a range of objectives to manage flood risk. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 42 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 42: Relevant objectives: Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment

207

It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. Protection from flooding is still a significant measure to managing flood risk within the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment, but given the high level of protection measures that already exist throughout the catchment it is not perhaps the dominant measure, given that many large urban areas within Nottingham already receive a high level of flood protection from existing flood risk assets. Measures identified include:  Develop options to take forward for a detailed feasibility to tackle flood risk to the villages of Lowdham and Gunthorpe to the east of Nottingham, and Trowell on the west side of Nottingham. It is likely that the options will propose a series of improved flood storage options along with more traditional flood risk management methods, such as embankments, to protect properties from flooding  When considering protection of property from flooding, it is important to remember that protection has both a design life and a design standard, which means it can never 100% guarantee against all flooding occurrences  Nottinghamshire County Council is currently considering proposals to protect properties from flooding in the town of Southwell Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use 10measures associated with the prevention of damage caused by floods have been identified in the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment. These predominantly are linked to how working with the environment can help to achieve flood risk benefits whilst delivering environmental outcomes. These include:-  Investigate ways of working with the environment to reconnect the floodplain with rivers, in areas of mineral workings, especially sand and gravel sites, to assist in improving flood risk management. Alternatively, consider opportunities for storing water in areas upstream of urban centres  Results from the Trent hydraulic model, for the tidal reaches of the watercourse are currently being reviewed. This will allow us to consider how the tidal Trent area can contribute to the wider Humber estuary in terms of delivering compensatory habitat and wider flood risk management in and around the estuary  The Environment Agency is working with partners, including Nottingham City Council and Groundwork Greater Nottingham to take a CaBA to considering flood risk and the WFD in Day Brook catchment. The initial consideration is to review how well the Day Brook is connected to its floodplain and whether this can be improved to reduce the impact of flood risk downstream in Old Basford  Nottinghamshire County Council, as the LLFA, are improving the road network as part of a regeneration scheme in Hucknall. The scheme will involve the construction of storage for flood flows and help prevent flooding from the watercourse to properties nearby

208

Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood There are several measures that refer to preparing for risk. These include:-  Investigate flood resilience for infrastructure, such as transportation links, energy services and telecommunications, by first understanding what key infrastructure is at risk of flooding, then determining how damages can be limited and what measures can be undertaken to prepare for flooding.  The Environment Agency proposes to work with communities to develop flood warden schemes, improve the uptake of FWD, whilst looking to improve flood forecasting through better warning and expansion of the service. The Environment Agency is looking at reviewing the hydrometric network and looking to improve flood warning, for example on the River Erewash, through regular monitoring. By improving knowledge, the aim is to provide improved warning services to communities in the Erewash Valley at Ilkeston and Langley Mill.  In Old Basford the Environment Agency wants to work with the LRF to establish and support a flood warden scheme. There are over 200 properties at risk within Old Basford from the Day Brook. Due to its urban and rapidly responding nature the establishment of trained wardens within the community is seen as hugely beneficial in preparing the community for flooding. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population No measures have been identified, above existing works, related to recovery and review.

209

3.11. The Soar management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Soar catchment lies predominantly in the county of Leicestershire and flows through the centre of Leicester City itself. The north of the catchment falls into the southern rural part of Nottinghamshire. A small eastern part is in Rutland, and a small area to the south-west falls into Warwickshire. The River Soar catchment has an area of 1,380km2. The Soar starts just upstream of the village of Sharnford, southwest of Leicester, and becomes a major tributary of the River Trent to the east of Nottingham. Flows in the River Soar are augmented by several large tributaries like the River Sence (136km2), the River Wreake (446km2) and the Rothley Brook (96km2). The catchment is home to several large urban areas, as well as Leicester, including Loughborough, Melton Mowbray, Coalville and Hinckley. The eastern and southern boundary of catchment of the Soar forms a watershed between the Humber and Anglian RBD. To the north and west of the catchment lie adjacent catchments that drain into the Lower Trent and Erewash catchment to the north of the Soar. The significant level of surface water and fluvial flood risk from the Soar and its tributaries in Leicester means that the Leicester PUA is identified as an FRA as part of the PFRA process. As such, a more detailed assessment of the Leicester PUA, its flood risk, objectives and measures is included in the Leicester PUA FRA section within this document. Topography The River Soar rises from land at an elevation of around 140mAOD, although higher elevations of around 225mAOD are in the upper parts of the Wreake catchment, and to the west in the Charnwood Forest area. It rises near Hinckley and flows northeast through a flat valley towards the city of Leicester. At the confluence with the River Trent, land levels are typically around 28mAOD, creating a large expanse of lower level floodplain. The topography of the catchment is generally quite flat. Geology and soils Geology has a very strong influence on how a catchment responds to rainfall. The permeability of soil and the geology of an area influence the extent of overland flow and, therefore, how a watercourse responds to rainfall. It is recent glaciation that has shaped the landscape we see today and has played an important role in determining the surface geology and current drainage pattern. Glacial deposits of sands and gravels cover much of the river valleys, influencing flood mechanisms and the distribution of surface water flooding. The geology of the Soar catchment is dominated by impermeable clays and marls that cover moderately permeable geology. This tends to make the Soar catchment a relatively fast reacting watercourse in response to rainfall. The Carboniferous Coal Measures of North West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire form less prominent higher ground within the catchment. There are small pockets of clayey soils in the south east of the catchment which result in locally rapid run-off due to their low permeability of the soils. Whilst the effect of this is not noticeable on a catchment scale, smaller streams and rivers in the area can be quite flashy in response.

210

Figure 61: Overview map of the Soar management catchment

211

The upland area of Charnwood is formed by outcrops of older and harder (Cambrian) rocks which have undergone periods of folding and weathering and are variable in their characteristics. This area is to the west of the catchment and lies between Coalville and Loughborough. A number of small fast-flowing streams, flow from this area and transfer sediment into the River Soar, which has a relatively shallow channel gradient. Upstream of Leicester is the River Sence catchment, the geology of this catchment is impermeable (mudstone overlain with clayey loam) and the topography is quite flat which results in the catchment responding to rainfall in a similar manner to the Soar. Land use and land management The majority of the catchment is rural, predominantly of arable land and grassland. The Upper Soar is dominated by agricultural land interspersed with small settlements. As the river approaches the city of Leicester, urban land uses begin to dominate. The corridors of the natural river and the navigable canals through the city are earmarked for regeneration development. Downstream of Leicester the river regime is characterised by broad flat floodplains and a meandering profile, where agricultural land uses, predominantly pasture, dominate. To the west of the catchment lie the Leicestershire coalfields where the less fertile soils are generally unsuitable for agriculture. To the east the Nottingham and Leicestershire Wolds and Vales by contrast have a very mixed land use. The catchment is home to approximately 800,000 people, the majority living within the Leicester City administrative boundary. The Upper Soar catchment was highlighted as a priority area in the ‘Farming for Water for the Future Trent Catchment study. This project has shown that it is possible to work with landowners to carryout capital works that both store flood water and delay the rate at which it flows downstream (see the case study below). Both of these approaches if delivered across a wider catchment would have a cumulative effect of reducing the risk of properties flooding downstream in Leicester and are being considered as part of the wider Leicester LFRMS. Farming and water for the future A partnership project to store and slow down flood water has been completed on farmland in the River Soar catchment upstream of Leicester. The work took place at the headwaters of the Broughton Astley Brook, a tributary of the River Soar. It included a range of techniques including building ‘leaky barriers’ across watercourses and creating new ponds, wetlands and flood water storage areas. Trees have also been planted to intercept rainfall and increase soil water absorption capacity. Farmers have been involved in every aspect of the project design and development. All the project work complements existing farm management practices and does not require substantial additional maintenance. Where possible, new wildlife habitats have been created to provide valuable spaces for birds, invertebrates and a range of other species. The project was designed around promoting ‘ecosystem services’ encouraging natural processes on farms in a sustainable way that contribute to its wider environmental, social and economic impact. A monitoring system is in place to record the flows and water levels and enable data analysis to determine the effectiveness of the project. The £19,500 project was funded by Trent RFCC Local Levy and Leicestershire County Council and was project managed by Trent Rivers Trust. Other partners included Leicester City Council, National Farmers Union, Canal and Rivers Trust, Natural England, Severn Trent Water and Country and Business Landowners Association.

212

The partnership is continuing to explore different ways in which flood risk can be reduced in Leicestershire as well as providing other benefits. Hydrology Approximately 40% of rain falling on the catchment runs-off. Rainfall in the catchment is quite low at 640mm per annum, in comparison to neighbouring catchments. The towns of Hinckley, Leicester, Melton Mowbray and Loughborough result in a moderately urbanised catchment, however, the low river gradient and wide river valley, result in a catchment which is overall not significantly flashy. The River Sence rises near Houghton-on-the-Hill in Leicestershire and flows predominantly south west towards Leicester, where it meets the River Soar. At Great Glen it crosses the Grand Union Canal but there is no flow augmentation in the River Sence. Downstream of Leicester the channel of the Soar becomes wider and flatter and is flanked on both sides by numerous lakes, remnant of previous sand and gravel pit mining activity now making up Watermead Country Park. Immediately downstream of the country park the river is joined from the east by its most substantial tributary, the River Wreake. The River Wreake rises near Waltham-on-the-Wolds and is known as the River Eye. It flows south west through Melton Mowbray, where it becomes known as the River Wreake. With the exception of the town of Melton Mowbray it is essentially an agricultural catchment. The topography of the catchment is slightly steeper than the River Soar particularly in its upper catchment where it drains the Leicestershire Wolds. The Wreake catchment has clay geology resulting in rapid run-off and a flashy flow regime. However, this tends to be a localised response and has limited impact on the flows in the Soar and Trent catchment as a whole. Immediately downstream of the Wreake confluence the Soar is joined on the other bank by the smaller Rothley Brook catchment. This is quite a steeply sloping, impermeable mudstone catchment with a fast run-off response to rainfall. The Rothley Brook and many of the other left bank tributaries of the Soar north west of Leicester (between Loughborough and Coalville) drain an elevated area of land between the Tame and Soar catchments known as the Charnwood. The natural environment The management catchment has a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. There are no areas of land designated as SAC’s or SPA’s within the Soar catchment area. There are however, close to 1,700ha of land designated as SSSI. The area contains a wealth of habitats and species including water meadows, reedbeds and acid grassland. The BAP habitats and species within the catchment area have targeted protection and enhancement of heath-grassland, reedbed, floodplain wetlands, neutral grassland, whiteclawed crayfish, otter, water vole and black poplars. A single NNR is located within the management catchment at Charnwood Lodge, to the west of Loughborough, and a further 19 LNRs are in the catchment, which include Watermead Country Park, Aylestone Meadows and Glen Hills.

213

The historic environment There are no world heritage sites or registered battlefields within the Soar management catchment. There are however approximately 450 SAMs which include King Williams Bridge, The Mount Motte at Melton Mowbray and Ulverscroft Priory. As well as this there are a number of Registered Parks and Gardens including Garendon, Stapleford Hall and Quenby Hall. As well as these, there are a large number of Listed Buildings (around 2,800) and conservations areas within the catchment. As with local environmental designations, their importance is recognised and they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding Flooding of the Soar Valley is a regular occurrence historically, particularly, downstream of Leicester. Low lying fields and minor roads are regularly flooded from the River Soar. In 1998 there was a significant flood event that affected properties in the valley, and also affected many properties around Melton Mowbray in the Wreake Valley. This event led to the construction of the Brentingby flood storage area, upstream of the town. The most recent flooding of note in the Soar catchment occurred in 2012. Approximately 40 properties suffered internal flooding in Loughborough in a low return period flood event primarily from the Wood Brook. In the same year the Soar came very close to flooding in excess of 1,000 residential and commercial properties in the Belgrave and Abbey Meadows areas of Leicester City. The villages of Sharnford and Zouch also experienced flooding in 2012. There are a number of general causes of flooding in the various parts of the catchment. Although the most extensive and severe flooding effects in the Soar catchment are associated with rainfall runoff into the major flood carrying main rivers. The effects on the more minor watercourses are also significant. The most significant areas of fluvial and surface water flood risk in the catchment are Leicester City and Loughborough. Both were identified by Defra as at significant risk of flooding from surface water and the LLFAs for these locations have since produced SWMPs to identify actions for managing this risk. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea A large area of land within the Soar management catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, as seen in Figure 62. Key communities at risk include Leicester, Loughborough, Syston and Whitwick. Nearly 63,000 people are estimated to live in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, with just over 9,000 of these people living at high risk. Most of these people reside in the larger urban areas of Leicester, Loughborough and Melton Mowbray. Almost 10% of non-residential properties lie at flood risk across the Soar, whilst almost 25km of railway is at risk of flooding from rivers. The Soar is a mainly rural area, however, figures estimate that only 6,000ha of 120,000ha are at risk of flooding from rivers.

214

Table 43: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Soar management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 777,200 9,300 17,400 36,050 300 No of services: 1,350 50 40 70 <10 Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 73,300 1,550 1,900 3,700 <50 No of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 450 <10 <10 20 0 Railway (km): 130 <10 <10 10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 117,200 3,100 1,550 1,200 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 35 6 0 3 0 50m: SAC (ha): 0 - - - - SPA (ha): 0 - - - - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 1,700 300 <50 <50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,500 100 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 450 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,800 70 50 120 0 No of Licensed water 150 50 10 10 0 abstractions:

Changes to the way the land is used can affect the morphology of a river system. An example of this is the history of mining which has affected the natural erosion and deposition processes within the catchment and the transportation of sediment during high flows has increased. Historically, the River Soar has experienced many man- made changes, particularly where mining or aggregate abstraction has been carried out in the floodplains, as well as works to improve navigation. This has disturbed the natural processes of erosion and deposition, and increased sediment movement. On occasion, this can result in the build up of sediment, particularly at structures such as culverts, sluice gates and weirs, eventually leading to localised flooding. Land drainage and flood defences have altered the way sediment is carried and deposited by changing the characteristics of the flows in the river and often by changing the channel form itself. This has resulted in less deposition and erosion within the channels where the changes have taken place, however by increasing conveyance through flood risk locations, there is a tendency for sediment deposition to increase in other downstream locations. Siltation and excessive nutrients, within watercourses, from agriculture are exacerbated by inputs from sewage treatment works and private sewerage systems. This siltation can cause a particular problem for effective flood risk management. Improvements in catchment land use can help to reduce sediment delivery to the river channel, and also reduce surface run-off and as a result flood peaks.

215

Figure 62: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Soar management catchment

216

Flooding from local sources There are other sources of flooding from surface water, ordinary water courses, ground water and sewers across this catchment. The updated surface water flood maps (December 2013) show how widespread this problem is across the catchment. As would be expected the risk of flooding from surface water sources is highest in the more urban concentrated areas of the catchment. Across the catchment area there are varied and challenging flooding problems to address, including numerous communities at risk of flooding, where there are currently no FASs, or schemes that offer limited levels of protection. There are also large areas of agricultural land where there may be the potential to work with landowners and partners to develop opportunities to utilise natural processes and alternative land management to help manage flood risk as well as deliver improved environmental benefits. Groundwater flooding can be a problem where layers of gravels or sand, usually located in the vicinity of a floodplain, transmit large quantities of water through the subsurface layers to locations thought to be protected from river flooding by raised ground. This does occur within the main Soar valley where aggregate extraction is undertaken, causing occasional flooding in unexpected areas, but more generally just resulting in areas which routinely tend to become more water logged when river levels are high.

217

Figure 63: Flooding from surface water: Soar management catchment

218

Flooding from reservoirs There are a number of large raised reservoirs within the catchment, used primarily for water supply, Cropston and Frisby Reservoirs and flood storage, Brentingby and Frisby. Leicester's growing population in the late 1800s required the construction of a series of reservoirs, but with ever growing demand, the reservoirs in Leicestershire are no longer adequate to meet demand. There are a number of reservoirs in the catchment that are no longer used for their original purpose and are now used for recreational activities and provide environmental benefits. Nanpantan Reservoir near Loughborough and Thornton reservoir in the National Forest are now used as Fisheries and Blackbrook Reservoir near Shepshed is designated as a SSSI. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 36,000 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Sour management catchment, representing around 5% of the total population. Approximately 4,000 non-residential properties are at risk as well as nearly 3,00ha of agricultural land. A small area of national environmental designations is at risk as well as a small percentage of historic assets, for example 152 listed building and 47ha of registered parks and gardens. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 44: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Soar management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 777,200 36,150 No of services: 1,350 70

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 73,300 3,850 No of airports: 1 0 Roads (km): 450 20 Railway (km): 130 10 Agricultural land (ha): 117,200 3,000

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 35 6 SAC (ha): 0 - SPA (ha): 0 - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 1,700 250 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,500 50 SAMs (ha): 450 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 2,800 150 No of Licensed water abstractions: 150 40

219

Figure 64: Flooding from reservoirs: Soar management catchment

220

Partnership working All RMAs actively participate in an existing collaborative flood risk partnership in the region. Under the LRF, a FRMB with representatives from the Environment Agency, Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council, Rutland County Council and other key stakeholders, meet quarterly to review and coordinate LLFA actions and cross-boundary issues. Linked to the FRMB, the LRF also has several working groups which include the Flood Working Group (for flood response) and the SWaMp. Collaboration between City, County and Boroughs/Districts also occurs through Leicester and Leicestershire Local Economic Partnership. A working group on policies affecting the PUA is co-ordinated by the Housing Planning and Infrastructure Group which can be developed to enable cross-boundary working on flood risk and planning. It is crucial that all RMAs continue to work together as they undertake their responsibilities to ensure effective and consistent management of local flood risk throughout the Soar Catchment. Partnership working can also be effective in the delivery of integrated flood risk management schemes, as the example at Lubbesthorpe, below, highlights. Lubbesthorpe Brook FAS, Leicester Lubbesthorpe Brook is a tributary of the River Soar which flows through Braunstone on the south west edge of Leicester. Following repeated flood events which affected properties on the Lubbesthorpe Road, the Environment Agency worked with local residents and partner organisations to address the issue. Construction of the £720,000 scheme commenced in June 2013 and was completed in October 2013. The scheme involved widening and realigning the course of the Lubbesthorpe Brook. 450m of watercourse was diverted away from the back gardens of properties on Lubbesthorpe Road into a new channel through the Osiers Nature Reserve, making much more space for water. To reduce water levels and the risk of blockages, a new culvert was also constructed. The scheme incorporates many environmental benefits such as the re-naturalised channel, backwater and wetland areas and native planting. The wetland area will provide storage for excess flood flows as well as providing a great habitat and refuge for fish. Environment Agency staff volunteered to plant trees and hedging plants to re-establish the land where works had been carried out and provide new habitat for local wildlife. The completed scheme reduces the flood risk to 50 properties and offers protection from flooding to a 1 in 100 chance of occurring in any given year. The local community were involved from the outset through focus group meetings, flood fairs and drop-in sessions. The Environment Agency sent out a newsletter fortnightly to update stakeholders and residents and held an open evening on site when over 50 visitors were taken on a tour of the site. All residents signed a no compensation agreement agreeing that their potential compensation claim was a contribution towards the scheme. The positive attitude of the residents and the local community enabled us to achieve a reduction in flood risk and an improvement for both wildlife and users of the Osiers Nature Reserve. Following completion of this scheme, Severn Trent Water has commenced works to improve the capacity of the surface water sewerage system in the same area. They are investing £200,000 to provide protection to 20 properties at risk of flooding from the public sewer during periods of heavy rainfall.

221

Conclusions and objectives for the Soar catchment The Soar management catchment is approximately 1400km2 in area with a population of approximately 800,000. The main centre of population is Leicester, and the River Soar runs through the heart of the city. Due to the level of flood risk in the city, from a variety of sources, Leicester City Council have produced their own FRMP for the Leicester PUA (this is included within the Humber FRMP). There are several other significant urban areas within the catchment that include Loughborough, Melton Mowbray, Coalville and Hinckley. Beyond these urban concentrations the Soar management catchment is a rural catchment with undulating countryside. The Soar Valley is a wide flat bottomed valley, with a gentle gradient, for large amounts of its length. The west of the catchment has some elevated land that gives rise to some steep smaller sub-catchments that respond rapidly to rainfall and affect some of the communities in and around Loughborough and Coalville. To the east the land is elevated to a similar level as the west, but has a much gentler gradient, making it much less responsive to rainfall. Agriculture is a significant land use in the Soar catchment and the Environment Agency has looked to work with landowners, upstream of Leicester, in a partnership led by the Trent Rivers Trust, to look at means of slowing the flow of water from land. It is an area of initiative, when it comes to considering flood risk related problems, and this is highlighted in the work at Lubbesthorpe Brook in Leicester. Here the Environment Agency has looked to produce a scheme, along with Severn Trent Water, that reduces risk of flooding whilst delivering other environmental benefits. In terms of rainfall, the Soar management catchment receives an annual total that is lower than the national average. Even with a lower average total rainfall, there are records of regular flooding throughout the Soar Valley, with low lying fields and minor roads regularly inundated in the Loughborough area. 1998 brought wide scale flooding to the Wreake Valley with many properties flooded in the town of Melton Mowbray. 2012 brought further flooding to properties in Loughborough, Sharnford and Zouch. The levels in the Soar through Leicester were so high and there were concerns that nearly a 1,000 residential properties and businesses were at imminent risk of flooding. Leicester City does not have any formal flood defences, and with the Leicester PUA recognised as a FRA, it is essential for the Environment Agency and Leicester City Council to work closely to consider the future flood risk management of the city. Within the Soar catchment, including Leicester, it is estimated that approximately 63,000 residential properties are at risk of flooding. The Environment Agency and Leicester City Council have targeted the priority risk issues to manage flood risk in the catchment and the Principal Urban Area through the first cycle of FRMP planning. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD.

222

Table 45 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Soar management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information.

223

Table 45: Relevant objectives: Soar management catchment

Reference Objective Relevant? SOC 1 Understanding Flood Risk and Working in Partnership  SOC 2 Community Preparedness and Resilience  SOC 3 Reduce Community Disruption  SOC 4 Flood Risk and Development  SOC 5 Reduce risk to people  ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  Measures across the Soar catchment 24 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Derwent Humber management catchment. These measures also include the measures that are included within the Leicester Principal Urban Area FRMP. A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. Four measures have identified protection as a means of managing flood risk within the FRMP. These measures range from looking at investigations into wider flood risk issues, planning for watercourse works to improve flood flow conditions through to investigating means of protecting property from surface water flooding. Several of these measures have been included form the Leicester PUA FRMP. A summary of these issues include:-  Investigating flood risk in communities with known problems, to better understand what options are available to protect properties, such as Braunstone and Cosby  Schemes including individual property level protection

224

Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use 11 measures associated with the prevention of damage caused by floods have been identified in the Soar management catchment. These predominantly are linked to how working with the environment can help to achieve flood risk benefits whilst delivering environmental outcomes. Prevention measures include:-  investigating ways of working with the environment to reconnect the floodplain with rivers, in areas of mineral workings, especially sand and gravel sites, to assist in improving flood risk management  deliver priority habitat and help to deliver flood risk management improvements by ensuring that appropriate designs are in place at the onset of a project  identify the potential for rehabilitating watercourses and developing plans for implementing land management improvements, all of which can have positive impacts upon flood risk  consider opportunities for storing water in areas upstream of urban centres, and also if they can be tied into the development of future flood risk schemes such as Loughborough  Removal of structures believed to cause flooding issues  Investigating opportunities within urban catchments to understand what options are available to improve the environment whilst reducing flooding to property  Investigating opportunities at a more local scale to understand if flood risk improvements can be delivered through environmental enhancements Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood 9 measures have been identified that deliver preparedness. Urban areas like Leicester are dependent upon good preparation for flooding, given the nature and rapid onset of flooding that is experienced within urban area. These include:-  Investigate flood resilience for infrastructure, such as transportation links, energy services and telecommunications, by first understanding what key infrastructure is at risk of flooding, then determining how damages can be limited and what measures can be undertaken to prepare for flooding;  Working with communities to develop flood warden schemes, such as Whitwick;  improve the uptake of FWD;  improve flood forecasting through better warning and expansion of the service, particularly in Leicester and Loughborough. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population No measures have been identified

225

3.12. The Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment

Introduction to the catchment This catchment covers the River Trent and its tributaries from its source on Biddulph Moor north of Stoke-on-Trent to its confluence with the Tame near Alrewas. It covers an area of approximately 1,400km2 and includes most of Staffordshire, a small area of Shropshire and parts of Wolverhampton and Walsall. The upper stretch of the River Trent flows south through the urban conurbations of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme and then follows a south-easterly course through Stone and Rugeley to its confluence with the River Tame. The rural Trent’s main tributaries are the Rivers Sow and Blithe. The River Sow rises in the north-west of the catchment, flows south-east through Stafford joining the Trent near Great Haywood. The River Penk rises to the north-west of Wolverhampton and joins the River Sow at Stafford. The Blithe rises to the east of Stoke-on-Trent and flows south-east joining the Trent near King’s Bromley. The river is impounded at Blithfield Reservoir where the water is abstracted for public water supply by South Staffordshire Water. Other smaller tributaries include the Lyme Brook which passes through Newcastle- under-Lyme, the Scotch Brook which meets the Trent at Stone, and the River Swarbourn which flows into the Trent just upstream of the Tame confluence. The main urban areas are Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under- Lyme, Stafford, Cannock, Lichfield, Rugeley and Stone. The Sow and Penk IDB is responsible for land drainage, river maintenance and the regulation of the local drainage network OWs within their operational area, which is located in a small catchment in and around Stafford. The management catchment is bordered by two others in the Humber RBD – the Dove management catchment and the Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment. It is also bordered by two in the Severn RBD – Severn Middle Worcestershire and Severn Middle Shropshire as well as one other in the North West RBD – Weaver Gowy. Topography The northern part of the management catchment, where the River Trent rises, forms part of the western edge of the Peak District. The steep nature of the upper catchment area results in a fast response to rainfall in the watercourses. Although the land flattens out quite quickly as the river flows through the town of Stoke-on-Trent, a high run off response to rainfall is maintained due to the urban nature. The River Sow has a slower run-off response to rainfall than might be expected from the steep topography due to the permeable nature of the underlying geology. The south east lowland area of the upper Trent is characterised by rolling hills and wide, shallow central valleys.

226

Figure 65: Overview map of the Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment Geology and soils The northern part of the management catchment is underlain by Carboniferous Coal Measures strata which comprise layers of mudstone, siltstone, sandstone and coal seams. To the south of Stoke-on-Trent a band of Triassic Sherwood Sandstone crosses the catchment with an east-west orientation, continuing beyond the catchment boundary in either direction. The Sherwood Sandstone also extends

227

southwards through the centre of the catchment, flanked on either side by Triassic Mercia Mudstone. The solid geology is overlain by Quaternary period deposits, predominantly glacial and alluvial in origin and generally thin (less than 10m thick). The Sherwood Sandstone geology is the only principal aquifer in the catchment and provides large volumes of water for abstraction, particularly for drinking water. Much of the management catchment is underlain by loamy soils which are moderately well drained but in the lower lying parts of the catchment can be seasonally waterlogged. The catchment runoff can therefore be quite variable and when waterlogged will result in a rapid response with high runoff rates. The sandy soils which occur in the north west of the catchment and around Cannock Chase tend to be better drained and much more permeable. However, they also tend to be more susceptible to soil erosion, particularly where they are found on steeper slopes. Land use and land management The majority of land is used for agricultural purposes; the Staffordshire Trent Valley is largely livestock producing with dairy being the dominant farm type. The washlands around the middle reaches of the Trent and the Rivers Sow and Penk comprise a somewhat fragmented landscape of pastoral and arable land, intermixed with urban development and the sand and gravel industry. Cannock Chase AONB lies to the southern edge of the catchment. The lower reach of the Trent is dominated by past and present industries with current and former sand and gravel quarries within the floodplain. Significant areas of woodland exist in the catchment, much of it concentrated around the upper reaches of the River Blithe and on Cannock Chase. The east of the catchment forms part of the National Forest, a landscape scale project that is looking to blend ancient woodland with new planting. The River Swarbourn flows through the National Forest joining the Trent at Wychnor. The most densely populated area within the catchment is Stoke-on-Trent with the population of the city and neighbouring towns being approximately 500,000 residents. Stafford also represents a large proportion of the populated catchment numbering approximately 125,000. The remainder of the catchment is largely rural with many small villages. Hydrology The River Trent rises on the carboniferous limestone of Biddulph Moor in the Staffordshire Moorlands on the western edge of the Peak District National Park. Rainfall here is high at around 950mm per annum and the steep topography results in a fairly fast run-off response to rainfall, but this is limited by the moderately permeable nature of the Carboniferous limestone geology. Although the land flattens out quite quickly as the river flows through the town of Stoke-on-Trent, a high run off response to rainfall is maintained due to the urban nature. The river flows south through a mainly arable landscape towards Rugeley where a major tributary, the River Sow joins on the right bank. The River Sow rises on Carboniferous limestone at Sowhead near Newcastle-under- Lyme. The river flows south east through Stafford to join the River Trent at Great Haywood. The Sow is joined by a major tributary, the River Penk, which rises near Wolverhampton and flows into the Sow from the south west just downstream of Stafford. The Sow catchment covers a mainly Carboniferous landscape but also drains the chalk escarpment of Cannock Chase via the River Penk. The moderately permeable limestone and highly permeable chalk result in the Sow having a slower run-off response to rainfall than might be expected from the steep topography.

228

Downstream of the Sow confluence, the Trent flows predominantly east past Rugeley, Kings Bromley and Alrewas, before turning north east towards Burton upon Trent. Along this reach the Trent is joined by the River Blithe. The River Blithe is a very long thin catchment draining which receives an average of 780mm of rainfall per annum. The Blithe rises at Werrington just outside Stoke-on- Trent and flows predominantly south east through an agricultural landscape to join the River Trent on the left bank near King’s Bromley. The underlying geology of the catchment is mainly Keuper marl with some sandstone but this has been largely covered with Boulder Clay and glacial sands and gravels. This has resulted in a moderate runoff response to rainfall. However, the river is impounded by Blithfield Reservoir near Abbots Bromley which has a predominant control on the flow regime in 75% of the catchment. The natural environment The Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment has a number of notable environmental features. Cannock Chase is a remote area of high sandstone, heather and bracken heathland with birch woodland and extensive pine plantations. It is designated as an Area of AONB and a SAC. The AONB encloses the last oak remnant of the ancient Cannock Forest and is dissected by secluded valleys and framed by gentler landscape of fine parkland and attractive villages. Cannock Extension Canal SAC has a diverse aquatic flora and rich dragonfly fauna, indicative of good water quality. It supports floating water-plantain which is at the eastern limit of the plant’s natural distribution in England. Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, adjacent to the River Trent east of Stafford, is the only known remaining example in the UK of a natural salt spring with inland saltmarsh vegetation. Other SACs in the catchment include Mottey Meadows, a large area of lowland hay meadow, and West Midlands Mosses an internationally important series of open water and peatland sites. In its upper catchment the River Sow runs through Cop Mere, a SSSI and one of the Meres and Mosses series. Further downstream the Sow flows through Doxey and Tillington Marshes SSSI at Stafford. Blithfield Reservoir on the River Blithe is designated as an SSSI. A number of these sites are liable to be affected by flooding such as Cannock Extension Canal, Doxey and Tillington Marshes and Mottey Meadows. Due to the industrial heritage of some areas of this catchment, there are a large number of weirs which have been identified as preventing the passage of fish and inhibiting natural geomorphological processes. The historic environment There are no world heritage sites within the Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment. There is one historic battlefield at Hopton Heath. There are a large number of SAMs throughout the catchment area as well as 12 Registered Parks and Gardens including Trentham Gardens near Stoke on Trent and Shugborough north of Stafford. In addition, there are a large number of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas within the catchment. As with other environmental designations, these will be taken into account when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding In this catchment, there is a fast response to rainfall in watercourses due to the steep nature of the upper catchment areas. The River Trent has large, historical industrial urban areas very close to its headwaters, which add to the rapid runoff rates. Stoke- on-Trent itself has largely escaped significant fluvial flooding from the River Trent due to its high altitude, although some areas of the city centre are impacted by flood

229

routes from the Fowlea Brook. In 1987, a summer storm resulted in a rapid rise in river levels on the Fowlea Brook. Property flooding occurred when a skip washed away and became wedged under a bridge in the Joiner’s Square area of the city. The River Trent also caused flooding in the Hanford area blocking the A34, a main transport route out of the city. The Fowlea Brook is considered a rapid response catchment. Further down the catchment there is the potential for disruption to people and communities from flooding in the populated areas such as Stone, Stafford and Cannock, although recent flood defence works, particularly in Cannock and Stafford, have significantly reduced flood risk. Flooding occurred in Cannock in September 1994 and in Stafford in November 2000. Further investigative work is being undertaken to reduce flood risk to property, particularly in view of climate change and urban expansion issues. Historically, Stafford and Cannock have been disrupted by river flooding while Penkridge and Rugeley have also suffered significant surface water flooding, most recently during 2012 when a number of properties were affected. Cannock FAS The Ridings Brook drains parts of Cannock Chase, Hednesford and eastern Cannock. Cannock has a history of flooding from the Ridings Brook with notable events occurring in 1994, 1999 and 2000. As part of the FAS, the dam at Mill Green balancing pond was raised to provide additional storage and an automated control structure built to house equipment to control water levels. A new flood relief channel and a culvert under the A5 trunk road helps to clear water away from this area during a flood. Flood walls, 1-1.5m high were constructed to protect properties in Rumer Hill Road. The scheme reduced flood risk to 237 homes and businesses whilst protecting key habitats and providing an enhanced recreational facility in the area. Although the floodplain of the Trent in places is extensive, flooding is largely confined to washland and agricultural areas meaning the disruption to people, property and infrastructure is minimised. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea In this management catchment there are approximately 23,500 people at risk from river flooding, representing approximately 3% of the total population. Nearly 3,500 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers of which around 700 are considered to be high risk. Approximately 5% of agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding with around 1,800ha being at high risk.

230

Table 46: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 771,050 3,450 11,500 8,500 100 No of services: 1,210 30 30 30 0

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential 69,450 700 1,600 1,150 <50 properties: No of airports: 0 - - - - Roads (km): 570 10 20 20 0 Railway (km): 160 <10 20 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 91,100 1,750 1,800 1,050 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 45 3 4 1 0 50m: SAC (ha): 1,400 <50 <50 <50 0 SPA (ha): 0 0 0 0 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 150 <50 <50 0 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 2,650 550 50 <50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,650 150 50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 150 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,300 80 90 60 0 No of Licensed water 380 110 10 <10 0 abstractions:

231

Figure 66: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment Flooding from local sources Surface water flooding affects the catchment with Stafford, Penkridge and Rugeley in particular having experienced recent surface water flooding problems (2012). The

232

Flood Maps for Surface Water show the extent to which surface water flooding could affect the catchment. Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. More details about risks, objectives and measures associated with these risks will be included in LFRMS being produced by Staffordshire, Stoke on Trent, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Shropshire LLFAs. There is no significant groundwater flooding issue affecting the catchment.

Figure 67: Flooding from surface water: Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment

233

Flooding from reservoirs Blithfield Reservoir is a public water supply reservoir operated by South Staffordshire Water which results in a major change to the natural flow regime in the River Blithe. Water at Blithfield Reservoir and Trentham Gardens is used for recreation with the River Trent at Stone having a canoe slalom course. Angling is also a major recreational activity in the catchment. Blithfield Reservoir is a SSSI. There are around 14,500 people at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Trent Valley Staffordshire management catchment, representing fewer than 2% of the total population. Approximately 2,100 non-residential properties are also at risk as well as around 3,000ha of agricultural land. Communities identified as at risk include Kings Bromley, Alrewas, Penkridge and central Stafford. Residential areas of Cannock are protected by a flood storage reservoir at Mill Green. This uses automatic penstocks which open and close to store or release water depending on river levels downstream. If river levels are high and in danger of overtopping banks, this will be recorded by a river levels monitor and transmitted back to the reservoir control unit. This information will trigger the penstocks at the reservoir to close, storing water in the reservoir and reducing the flows downstream. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 47: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment

Total in the Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 771,050 14,500 No of services: 1,210 50

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 69,450 2,100 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 570 30 Railway (km): 160 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 91,100 2,900

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 45 0 SAC (ha): 1,400 0 SPA (ha): 0 - RAMSAR site (ha): 150 0 World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 2,650 100 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,650 150 SAMs (ha): 150 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 2,300 250 No of Licensed water abstractions: 380 100

234

Figure 68: Flooding from reservoirs: Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment

235

Partnership working Within the catchment, RMAs have developed good working relationships with each other and other interested parties. Severn Trent Water is the water and sewerage provider in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within the Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment. The Environment Agency is currently working in partnership with Stoke City Council, concerning the Fowlea Brook to better understand the flood risk and potential for reducing flood risk in the city through regeneration. Staffordshire County Council and Shropshire County Council have agreed to work together to deliver a collaborative working approach towards flood risk management for their geographical areas. This approach fits in with the corporate values of both authorities and is providing opportunities for efficiencies through the sharing of resources and joint procurement of services as well as pooling of specialist flood risk management skills which are nationally in short supply. Partnerships have also been established between the Environment Agency, Staffordshire County Council and Cannock District Council to understand the flood risk from the Rising Brook in Rugeley and to develop options to reduce flood risk. Conclusions and objectives for the Staffordshire Trent Valley catchment The Trent Valley Staffordshire management catchment covers a predominately rural area of approximately 1,400km2 and includes a number of notable environmental designations including SACs, SSSIs and AONBs. It experiences river (fluvial) and surface water (pluvial) flooding that affects both urban and rural communities. The steep upper catchment responds rapidly to heavy rainfall and although the land flattens out quickly this high run off response is maintained downstream in and around Stoke-on-Trent due to urbanisation. Approximately 23,500 people are at risk of flooding from rivers, representing around 3% of the total population. Approximately 5% of the agricultural land within the catchment is also at risk of flooding. Historically the largest disruption has occurred in Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Cannock. Penkridge and Rugeley have also suffered significant surface water flooding more recently. In recent times fluvial flood risk has been managed effectively with the construction of flood defences. The Environment Agency will continue to build upon this by working in partnership with Stoke City Council, Staffordshire County Council and Cannock Chase District Council to understand the current flood risk, explore opportunities to reduce flood risk through regeneration, and explore further flood defence options in the key areas. The Fowlea Brook is now defined as a ‘Rapid Response Catchment’ and so the local community may benefit from a planned improved flood warning service. However, the influence of development and climate change will bring new challenges and pressures in managing flood risk to the more vulnerable communities. Flooding in the more rural communities within the catchment affects a smaller number of properties with complex flooding mechanisms. It is important to take measures to improve preparedness by working closely with the community, such as at King’s Bromley where a hard-engineered solution is not feasible and a Flood Action Group has been established. There are a number of reservoirs within the catchment although less than 2% of the population live within the maximum extent of flooding. It should be noted that

236

although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is low. Partnership working by the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, other RMAs, affected communities and developers will be vital in order to deliver cost effective and environmentally acceptable solutions for managing flood risk across the Trent Valley Staffordshire management catchment. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 48 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 48: Relevant objectives: Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment

Reference Objective Relevant? SOC 1 Understanding Flood Risk and Working in Partnership  SOC 2 Community Preparedness and Resilience  SOC 3 Reduce Community Disruption  SOC 4 Flood Risk and Development  SOC 5 Reduce risk to people  ECON 1 Reduce economic damage  ECON 2 Maintenance of Main River and existing assets  ECON 3 Transport services  ECON 4 Flood risk to agricultural land  ECON 5 Tourism  ENVI 1 WFD  ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  Measures across the Staffordshire Trent Valley catchment A total of 144 measures have been identified to manage flood risk across the Trent Valley Staffordshire management catchment. A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices. It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases and will be subject to availability of funding’. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. 28 measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding have been identified in the catchment. 14 of the measures have been identified to investigate and implement solutions for reducing flood risk. These include:  Investigate potential flood mitigation measures at Stafford (Sandyford Brook), Rugeley (Rising Brook), Perton, Marsh Lane (Lichfield), Huntington (Cannock), Hamstall Ridware, Goms Mill (Stoke-on-Trent), Fowlea Brook (Stoke-on-Trent), Codsall and Brown Edge.  Investigate whether property level protection measures could provide protection to properties in Norton Lane, Hobnock Road and Acacia Crescent (Bilbrook) which are affected by surface water runoff. Other measures relate to the management of surface water, for example by using

237

and retrofitting SuDS as well as attenuating flows and making space for water and providing additional capacity to accommodate climate change. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use 74 measures have been identified which will prevent flood damage, the majority of which are associated with preventing inappropriate development in floodplains and managing/reducing runoff through the planning process. Examples of these measures include:  Working with local council planners to ensure no inappropriate development on floodplains.  Surface water runoff from new development should be limited to the greenfield equivalent plus an allowance for climate change. Other measures are associated with making space for water to accommodate climate change by avoiding further culverting and wherever possible de-culverting and re-naturalising watercourses. Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood The nature of the catchment and differing land uses has resulted in 36 measures have being identified that will deliver preparedness. These include two measures which relate to maintaining and improving the accuracy of flood forecasting and warnings as well as expanding the service where feasible. Five measures have been identified which aim to improve awareness of flooding. Examples include:  Encourage people to sign up for FWD and implement emergency evacuation plans.  Engage openly with local communities to improve understanding of the risks from flooding. Promote a greater awareness and understanding of the risks of flooding, particularly in those communities at high risk, and encourage and enable householders, businesses and communities to take action to manage the risks.  Development of multi-agency flood plans. 17 measures are associated with promoting awareness and providing advice on the need to avoid inappropriate development in areas at flood risk, flood resistance and resilience, minimising risk and the need to manage land to avoid increasing risks. Other measures relate to maintaining flood risk management assets and carrying out river and watercourse maintenance where beneficial and subject to available funding. There are also measures associated with carrying out new or improving existing data and modelling in order to better understand flood risk in the catchment. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population Six measures associated with recovery and review have been identified. These include measures to restore and enhance rivers and their floodplains in order to make space for water. Other measures include de-culverting of watercourses, refurbishing assets and encouraging environmental best practice when new development takes place.

238

3.13. The Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse (SUNO) management catchment is approximately 3,500km2 and is mainly rural, with a population of approximately 600,000. It extends from the heights of the North Pennine Moors, Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors and Howardian Hills where the main river systems are characterised by steep river gradients down to the low-lying floodplains of the Vale of York in the south. The catchment is influenced by the tide as the River Ouse is tidal to Naburn Lock. There are several historic towns and cities including Richmond, Thirsk, Northallerton, Ripon, Harrogate, York and Selby and a large number of smaller rural communities throughout the catchment. The village of Drax is home to one of Western Europe’s largest coal fired power station. The area borders the traditional coalfields of South Yorkshire and includes part of the large Selby coalfield. Also important to the catchment is Catterick Garrison, located 3 miles south of Richmond, and is the largest army garrison in the world and one of the largest population centres in the area. The catchment is crossed by several major roads (A1, A19, A64) and rail links (East Coast Main Line), and the tidal Ouse is an important navigational route. Approximately 95% of the management catchment comprises agricultural land. This is significantly important to the local economy as nearly 50% of this is classified as between grade 1 and 3: excellent to moderate quality productive land. The management catchment is bordered by two others in the Humber RBD, the Derwent Humber and Wharfe and Lower Ouse. It is also bordered by three other RBDs: the Northumbria, North West and Solway Tweed. Topography The topography of the SUNO management catchment varies significantly, from between 2m below sea level to 716m above sea level. The north is characterised by the steep uplands of the North York Moors and Howardian Hills, located to the northeast, and the Pennines in the west and northwest of the catchment, which runs in a northwest southeast direction. The headwaters of the Rivers Swale and Ure rise here and ground elevations reach 735m. The eastern and southern region of the catchment is relatively flat and characterised by the gently undulating plains of the Vale of York where the upland tributaries flow into the River Ouse and subsequently into the tidal River Ouse downstream in the far southeast of the catchment.

239

Figure 69: Overview map of the SUNO management catchment

240

Geology and soils Various solid geological bands are present within the catchment and generally run in a north to south direction. Carboniferous limestone is present in the higher elevations to the west of the catchment, giving way to Millstone grit in the central catchment, outcropping to form the Nidderdale plateau. This geology is intersected by alternating bands of magnesium limestone and Permian mudstone, passing through the towns of Ripon and, Knaresborough. Sandstone dominates the valley where the River Swale and River Ouse drain the middle Swale, lower Ure and lower Nidd through the towns of Boroughbridge, York and Selby. To the east and northeast of the catchment mudstone and clays predominate in the Wiske, lower Swale and Ouse sub- catchments giving way to ridges of lias and clays in the uppermost elevations. Groundwater flow is highly efficient in the limestone, gritstones and sandstone areas, while the mudstone areas are not very permeable. Drift deposits overlay the solid geology, sitting below the soil surface. Drift deposits are absent in large areas of the western and north-western regions. Peat deposits are evident in the uppermost elevations such as Askrigg Common, Gunnerside Moor and Riggs Moor. The middle and lower Swale sub-catchments consist of till mixed with areas of glacial sand and gravel, river terrace deposits, and alluvium, giving way to clay deposits in the Ouse and Foss sub-catchments. Glacial sand and gravel is dominant in the middle Swale sub-catchment between Northallerton and the north of Boroughbridge. The river beds of all the main rivers within the catchment comprise of alluvium deposit. The west and northwest of the catchment is dominated by very shallow free draining upland soils. Deeper pockets of glacial drift occur, creating deeper free-draining loamy soils and deep well-drained silty soils, which may become seasonally waterlogged in winter. Although there are also permeable rock aquifers here, the rapid drainage of the soil and geology of this area means the presence of high groundwater levels and the potential for groundwater flooding is extremely low. The low-lying central catchment is characterised by sand and gravel soils that coupled with the highly productive permeable sandstone basin allow continuous movement and discharge of water into the river network, as well as making water available for abstraction. However, the sandstone does not display the same efficiency in passing water through the drainage network as limestone. Consequently as the water table rises during high intensity or prolonged rainfall events it has the potential to emerge as groundwater flooding. In contrast to this, the north and southwest are overlain by a range of poorly drained and permanently waterlogged very acid soil types. Consequently water moves slowly to the watercourse network and during prolonged rainfall events the peat becomes quickly saturated, the drainage capacity exceeded and surface runoff will dominate. In the northeast and southeast of the catchment, mudstone and clays predominate in the Wiske, lower Swale and Ouse sub-catchments giving way to ridges of lias and clays in the uppermost elevations. The areas of Boroughbridge, York and Selby are characterised by mudstone and clays which means water moves slowly into the watercourse network. Drainage of water across these areas is very poor and rather than throughflow, enhanced runoff rates are likely to be observed. Land use and land management The catchment is characterised by mainly good to moderate quality agricultural land, with 40% of the catchment being grade 3 agricultural land (1390 km2). The lower lying areas and open valley bottoms in the Vale of Pickering and Lower Derwent are higher grades 2 (245 km2) with a small area of Grade 1 (12 km2) around the confluence with the Ouse around Barmby-on-the-Marsh. The majority of the land within the management catchment is used for arable agriculture (1400 km2) or

241

improved grassland (1970 km2). Urban land use occupies less than 1% of the management catchment. Large urban areas include Richmond, Thirsk, Northallerton, Ripon, Harrogate, York and Selby. Hydrology There is a clear east-west divide in the catchment in terms of the amount of rainfall received. Ripon sits on the divide, receiving approximately 700mm of rain per year. With increasing distance to the west of Ripon, rainfall totals steadily increase until they hit a maximum of almost 2,000mm per year in the headwaters of the River Ure. In contrast, to the east of Ripon annual rainfall approximates 600mm per year, and can be as low as 500mm per year. As the west receives a much larger volume of rainfall it follows that much larger flows are often generated in the western upland catchments in comparison to the eastern lowland catchments. The Rivers Swale, Ure and Wharfe all flow in a south-easterly direction, draining large linear Pennine catchments. The River Swale is the most northerly of these catchments and joins the River Ure to the east of Boroughbridge. Some 7km downstream of this confluence at Linton on Ouse, the Ure becomes known as the River Ouse. The River Nidd joins the River Ouse 13km upstream of York. The difference in elevations between the north and south of the catchment has a strong influence on the flood generating capacities of its rivers. In the steeper north rainfall will turn rapidly into surface runoff flowing quickly down steep watercourses In contrast the flat nature of the south of the catchment will generally mean that the onset of any flooding will be less rapid and flow velocities lower. Steeper river gradients and therefore higher flow velocities in the upper parts of the catchment also give greater erosive power to the rivers. The natural environment The catchment has a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. There are five SAC and two SPAs, the North Pennine Moors and North York Moors, in the catchment of which the most extensive SPA is the North Pennine Moors. This SPA is a mix of blanket bog and heathland that is important for the breeding of several types of rare birds such as peregrine falcons and merlins. Of the SACs, sites wholly within the catchment include Strensall and Skipwith Commons, which are the last two areas of heathland remaining in the Vale of York. There are no Ramsar sites within the SUNO catchment. As well as this there are 79 SSSIs covering 416km2 which include a wide variety of different habitats but upland moorland habitats and upland limestone habitats form the most significant areas of designated habitat. A total of eleven NNRs are located within the catchment as well as 12 LNRs, which include Ballowfield, Hookstone Wood, Nosterfield and St Nicholas Fields. There are two National Parks that fall within the management catchment, the North Yorkshire Dales National Park and the North York Moors National Park.

242

The historic environment There is one world heritage sites within the SUNO management catchment - Studley Royal Park and the Ruins of Fountains Abbey near Ripon. The site was inscribed on the World Heritage Site list in 1986 for its striking 18th and 19th century landscape created around the large medieval ruins of Fountains Abbey, a Cistercian monastery site and Fountains Hall Castle. There are 382 SAMs within the SUNO catchment including prehistoric stone carvings, stone circles, barrows and funerary monuments and settlement remains. Roman remains include York city walls, roads, forts and camps, settlements and towns. As well as this there are 24 Registered Parks and Gardens including Swinton Castle, Aske Hall, Benningbrough Hall, Valley Gardens, York Cemetry and Newby Hall. There are four registered battlefields: the battles of Boroughbridge (1322), Northallerton (1138), Marston Moor (1644) and Myton (1319). As well as these, there are over 6500 Listed Buildings and over 100 conservation areas within the management catchment. The City of York has been designated as an Area of Archaeological Importance (AAI) under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Area Act 1979. The waterlogged conditions of the burial environment in York have lead to the exceptional preservation of organic archaeological remains such as bone, leather, and wood and palaeoenvironmental evidence. As with local environmental designations, the importance of these local designations is recognised and they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding The management catchment has a long history of flooding. The earliest recorded flood is in York is 1263 and there are numerous historical accounts of flooding occurring within the catchment since. Particularly notable floods are those of 1947 and 1982 which had a severe impact upon the lower Ouse (in particular Cawood, Barlby and Selby). The flood in autumn 2000 reached the highest level ever recorded on the River Ouse and there was widespread flooding of the river’s major tributaries. This flood followed a period of unprecedented rainfall; the autumn of 2000 was the wettest since rainfall records began in 1766. Flood defences, which were built following earlier floods, protected many areas during the event. However, flooding did occur to a large number of properties. Although much of the River Ouse is a slow responding river, the upland areas of the Yorkshire Dales respond rapidly to heavy rainfall and as such seven rapid response catchments have been identified: Gunnerside, Bainbridge, Reeth, Grinton, Boltby, Thirlby and Sutton under Whitestonecliffe. Over the course of 2012, there were 11 flood events across England and Wales as a result of rainfall between April and December being 161% of the long term. In Yorkshire 2012 was the wettest year since at least 1910. Between the 23rd and 25th September the residual elements of Hurricane Nadine saw two months of rainfall (over 100mm) falling over Yorkshire resulting in high groundwater and river levels. Over 100mm of rainfall fell on the upland catchment of the River Ouse between the 23rd and 25th of September 2012. As a result, the River Ouse in York peaked at 5.07m on the 27th September. At the time, this was the is the second highest level ever recorded in York, second only to the flooding of Autumn 2000. Key areas affected by the flooding were the city centre itself and the communities of Naburn, Cawood, Acaster Malbis, Bishopthorpe and Fulford.

243

The city’s existing flood defences successfully protected more than 1,000 properties. There were however over 200 properties directly affected by flood water including residential properties at Leeman Road, Lower Ebor Street, Alma Terrace, Fulford and Naburn. The disruption to communities was high with the A19 at Fulford, Tower Street, Bishopthorpe Road and A64 at Heslington badly affected along with the cancellation and redirection of a number of bus services. As well as this Cawood bridge was closured for a period of time. In December 2015, communities throughout the catchment again experienced the impacts of prolonged rainfall. Figures published by the Met Office indicate that storm Desmond, the fourth named storm of the season, saw 136mm of rain fall in Bainbridge in North Yorkshire within a 48 hour period. This, falling on already saturated ground, and followed closely by storms Eva (24 December) and Frank (29- 30 December) led to high river levels and widespread river flooding. Early data analysis carried out by the Environment Agency suggests that the peak river level on the River Ouse at Viking recorder in York reached 5.19m making this the second highest recorded level for the River Ouse, exceeding 2012 by more than 100mm. Further up the catchment we saw record river levels on the River Nidd, for example at Knaresborough and Hunsingore, as well as very high levels on the Rivers Ure and Swale1. A number of communities within the SUNO management catchment experienced the impact of flooding throughout December however the most severe and media intensive was that seen on Boxing Day in York. York has a long history of flooding and the city is well prepared for such events due to the presence of flood defences. As well as raised defences, York is protected by the Foss Barrier which primary purpose is to prevent high levels from the River Ouse from entering the River Foss. When the barrier is down, water cannot discharge from the Foss into the Ouse, so it must be pumped around the barrier into the Ouse to prevent it backing up. These defences have worked well for over 30 years however in December 2015 flooding occurred not only to undefended areas along the River Ouse in York but also to hundreds of properties within the River Foss catchment. On 21 December 2015 the Foss Barrier was lowered to deal with rising levels on the River Ouse, in the normal way. On 26 December 2015 there was further heavy rainfall across Yorkshire which resulted in increasing river levels on the Ouse and a rapid increase in river level on the River Foss. The River Foss at Huntington recorded the highest ever level at around 3.57m, topping the previous recorded level of 2.91m by over half a metre2. Working at full capacity, the Foss Barrier was unable to cope with the level of flow in the River Foss and as a result the decision was made to raise the barrier gate in order to slow the rate at which the River Foss was rising. This provided more time for emergency services to begin evacuation and for people to respond to severe flood warnings. The impact of this flood event, throughout the SUNO management catchment, is currently being reviewed by all RMAs. As well as this, an independent review has been commissioned by City of York Council. These reviews will further define and review the hydrological conditions, emergency response and long term needs for managing river flooding throughout the management catchment. The published recommendations from these reviews will be taken into account by all responsible parties in the long term management of the catchment.

1 It should be noted that this hydrology data has not yet been validated and records may be revised following further analysis and data collection carried out as part of the winter 2015/16 flood review. 2 This data has not yet been validated and records may be revised following further analysis and data collection carried out as part of the winter 2015/16 flood review

244

Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea A large area of land within the SUNO management catchment is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, as seen in Figure 70. Key communities at risk include York, Thirsk, Boroughbridge, Selby and Knaresborough. Approximately 42,200 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, representing approximately 9% of the total population. Just over 6,500 non- residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, over half of which are at low risk and 23% at high risk. Around 12% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with most (approximately 11,750ha) being at high risk. Table 49: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: SUNO catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 478,250 6,400 6,500 29,350 <50 No of services: 1,460 50 20 70 0 Risk to economic activity o N of non-residential properties: 92,400 1,550 1,350 3,850 <50 No of airports: 0 - - - - Roads (km): 450 <10 <10 10 0 Railway (km): 180 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 193,350 11,750 4,700 6,800 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 65 6 3 0 0 50m: SAC (ha): 39,650 50 150 100 0 SPA (ha): 38,850 50 100 50 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 300 <50 <50 <50 0 SSSI (ha): 41,550 550 200 150 <50 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2,550 250 50 100 0 SAMs (ha): 1,150 50 50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 6,740 330 120 380 0 No of Licensed water 700 190 30 <10 0 abstractions:

The Lower Ouse particularly has been engineered over many years, initially to improve navigation to York as a developing Roman city as well as the reclamation of land for productive agriculture. This changed the natural river processes, with many of the major rivers in the lower and mid catchment, including the Ouse, Nidd, Ure and Swale being maintained on its current course, and deepened to maintain navigation. The influence of the tide in the lower reaches brings a large regular influx of mud which has been dredged purely to keep the navigation route open. The river becomes tidally influenced downstream of Naburn Weir, which was constructed in the 1700s to limit this tidal influence and improve navigation in York.

245

An extensive drainage network has been created to drain much of the land in the flat open Vale and many of the rivers embanked to develop dry valuable arable land, where once there was open wetland or salt-marsh. In the last century, drainage works have taken place in the upper catchments, to open up land for cultivation. This has had the effect of increasing both run-off and sediment into the rivers increasing the volume of water and speed at which communities downstream are affected by flooding after a storm. Flood defence spending in recent years has been mainly on developing raised defences to protect many of these communities from regular floods. In addition a number of controlled washlands have been developed. These areas work by removing flood waters at the peak of the flood, reducing the level of flooding in the communities downstream, for example the filling of Clifton Ings upstream of York can reduce the maximum river level in York by up to 6 inches/15cm. Many of the Ouse Ings are now formal washlands, and are also areas of national importance for nature conservation.

246

Figure 70: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the SUNO management catchment

247

Flooding from local sources Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. In preparing the Humber FRMP North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council have included their local information regarding these sources of flooding – as further defined in their published LFRMS. As illustrated in Figure 71, a large area of the SUNO management catchment is affected by surface water flooding. These risks are taken into account in the relevant LFRMS and also represented within SFRA. SFRAs assess the different levels of flood risk in a local authority area and map these to assist with statutory land use planning. They provide concise information on flood risk issues, which assist planning officers in the preparation of the Local Plans and in the assessment of future planning applications. The relevant SFRAs for the SUNO management catchment can be viewed at:  City of York SFRA 2013: SFRA 2013  The North East Yorkshire SFRA (2006) which covers Ryedale District Council, Scarborough Borough Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority: North East Yorkshire SFRA (2006)  The North West Yorkshire SFRA (2009) which covers Harrogate Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council and Craven District Council: North West Yorkshire SFRA Together the LFRMS and SFRAs provide a comprehensive assessment of local flood risk within the Derwent Humber management catchment.

248

Figure 71: Flooding from surface water: SUNO management catchment

249

Flooding from reservoirs There are 33 reservoirs in the management catchment, used for water supply, storage and recreational purposes. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that approximately 6000 people are at risk from flooding resulting from a failure of a reservoir in the catchment, representing just 1% of the total population. Approximately 1,750 non-residential properties are at risk as well as nearly 6,600ha of agricultural land. No international environmental designations are at risk however a small percentage of historic assets, for example 270 listed building and 305ha of registered parks and gardens are at risk. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 50: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: SUNO management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 478,250 5,800 No of services: 1,460 50

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 92,400 1,750 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 450 <10 Railway (km): 180 <10 Agricultural land (ha): 193,350 6,550

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 65 2 SAC (ha): 39,650 0 SPA (ha): 38,850 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - World Heritage Site (ha): 300 <50 SSSI (ha): 41,550 450 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2,550 300 SAMs (ha): 1,150 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 6,740 270 No of Licensed water abstractions: 700 110

250

Figure 72: Flooding from reservoirs: SUNO management catchment

251

Partnership working As noted in Part A of the FRMP, managing flood and coastal risks, and particularly local flood risks, requires many organisations to work together in partnership. Within the SUNO management catchment the following RMAs work closely together to identify, plan and deliver flood risk and coastal erosion projects in our day-to-day work and formally through the North Yorkshire and York Flood Risk Partnership:  North Yorkshire County Council  Environment Agency  City of York Council  Ainsty IDB  Yorkshire Water Services  Kyle and Upper Ouse IDD  Highways Authority  Foss IDB  Swale and Ure IDB  Ouse and Derwent IDB As well as this RMAs work the district authorities in North Yorkshire including Richmondshire, Hamilton, Harrogate and Ryedale. A significant piece of work that is currently underway, and being developed in partnership, is the development of the City of York Flood Management Plan (River Ouse and Foss). This Plan commenced in summer 2015 to review all RMAs understanding of flood risk within the city and identify options for managing risk both now and in light of climate change. This plan was due to be completed in 2017, however in response to the winter 2015/16 flooding has been brought forward and prioritised for delivery by the end of 2016. This plan is referred to in the FRMP as the River Foss Strategy and City of York Flood Defence Improvement Strategy. Economic sustainability The scale of development and the future pressure for development is important in the long term planning for flood risk and coastal erosion risk management. Firstly, impermeable surfaces can lead to runoff bypassing soil; increased volume of storm run-off and reduced travel times; increased flood peaks; reduced groundwater recharge and reduced low flows. Secondly, inappropriately located development can lead to an increase in flood risk to those properties placed within known FRAs and also to sites downstream due to increased runoff. It is vitally important to recognise the need for development and regeneration to allow sustainable economic growth to take place; this is supported by national and local planning policy. The York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership have been allocated €110m from the EU Structural and Investment Fund through the LEP. The partnership predicts that investment which promotes business to grow, enlarge the local agritech and renewable energy sector, improve the transport infrastructure and unlock land for residential developments could result in up to £3bn of further economic growth Find out more: across the region. A few key development sites located within FRAs are planned within the Information regarding LEPs can catchments. Within the Strategic Economic Plan, be found here: York, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Northallerton, as well as Catterick and Catterick  York, North Yorkshire and Garrison have been identified as Growth areas East Riding LEP: http://www.businessinspiredgr which will be the focus for new housing and owth.com/ employment development. As noted, a number of these locations are affected by flooding and therefore the need for sustainable development is a priority for the Environment Agency and LLFA. This vision is summarised through the Strategic Economic Plan as “Our vision is to make York, North Yorkshire and East Riding the place in England to grow a small business, combining a quality business location with a great quality of life.”

252

Conclusions and objectives for the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse catchment The SUNO management catchment is approximately 3,500km2 and is mainly rural, with a population of approximately 600,000. The topography varies significantly, from between 2m below sea level to 716m above sea level. The north is characterised by the steep uplands of the North York Moors and Howardian Hills, located to the northeast, and the Pennines in the west and northwest of the catchment, running in a northwest southeast direction. The eastern and southern region is relatively flat and characterised by the gently undulating plains of the Vale of York. The west and northwest of the catchment is dominated by free draining upland soils which may become seasonally waterlogged in winter. The rapid drainage in these areas means that seven rapid response catchments have been identified: Gunnerside, Bainbridge, Reeth, Grinton, Boltby, Thirlby and Sutton-under- Whitestonecliffe. The catchment has a wealth of environmental designations including five SACs, two SPAs, one Ramsar site, 79 SSSIs, two NNRs and eleven LNR. As well as this the SUNO catchment is famous for its cultural heritage including one world heritage, approximately 800 (individual) and 700 (collective) SAMs, four registered battlefields, 24 Registered Parks and Gardens and an AAI (City of York). The catchment has a long history of flooding. The earliest recorded flood is in York in 1263 and there are numerous historical accounts of flooding occurring within the catchment since. Particularly notable floods are those of 1947 and 1982 which had a severe impact upon the lower Ouse (in particular Cawood, Barlby and Selby) as well as the most recent 2015 flooding. Approximately 39,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, representing approximately 9% of the total population. Just over 6,500 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, over half of which are at low risk and 24% at high risk. Around 12% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with most (approximately 11,700ha) being at high risk. There are 33 reservoirs with around 1% of the population the population falling with the extreme flood outline. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 51 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the SUNO management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 51: Relevant objectives: SUNO management catchment

253

ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  As previously noted, North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council have volunteered to include their local flooding information from their LFRMS. Within these strategies the councils set out their own objectives for managing local flood risk within their administrative areas. Figure 73 shows the objectives that these LLFAs are aiming to deliver.

Figure 73: LFRMS objectives relevant to the SUNO management catchment Measures across the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse catchment 72 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the SUNO management catchment. This includes a number of measures that have been taken from existing plans and strategies that have been provided on a voluntary basis by our partners including:  North Yorkshire County Councils LFRMS (2015) x 17  City of York LFRMS (2014) x 19 A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and response is provided below. The detailed list of measures can be viewed in Part C: Appendices.

254

It should be noted that identification of these measures is not a commitment to deliver. The need has been identified but assessment of benefit and affordability has yet to be made in many cases. Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. 20 measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding, through structural and non structural action has been identified in the SUNO management catchment. Three of these come from the City of York LFRMS (2014) and are concerned with the City of York administrative area. They are to deliver: a programme of flood risk management projects to reduce impacts of local flooding; an IDB maintenance programme and the City of York Council maintenance programme. The one action coming from the North Yorkshire County Councils LFRMS is to deliver a programme of prioritised catchment level flood risk management projects. 16 measures are Environment Agency measures, which all but one are deemed to have a priority of high, very high or critical. Four of these actions have been estimated in the current MTP to reduce flood risk to around 450 properties at a cost of approximately £6million. The remaining 12 actions include:  Works on the pumping station, floodwall and river channel plus redesign of the existing flood defence assets at Boroughbridge  Replace gabions and remove gravel in Ripon  Replace Roecliffe pumping station  Carry out recommended works following the City of York Flood Defence Improvement Strategy and the Flood Study/Strategy for Burdyke inc. Blue Beck (now referred to as the City of York Flood Management Plan (River Ouse and Foss)). Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use The highest number of measures (24) is associated with the prevention of damage caused by floods. Seven of these have come from the North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS (2015) whilst eight are from the City of York Council LFRMS (2014). These measures are associated with the creation of, and input into Catchment Plans and Local Development Plans; developing standards, guidance and processes required to implement Schedule 3 of FWMA; maintaining a prioritised programme of flood alleviation projects in the context of the RFCC MTP (6 years); recording and monitoring of assets implicated in significant local flood risk and collating and analysing data on local flood risk. Of particular importance to this management catchment is the development of detailed strategies and options for managing risks in the Upper Ouse and Foss areas of York. These studies will identify specific measures that are required to effectively manage flood risk and will inform the next planning cycle of the FRMP. Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood 21 measures are related to preparedness. Six of these are related to improving flood forecasting and warning in the Ure Middle and Lower and the Nidd Middle and Lower areas. Six actions come from the North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS and four from the City of York Council LFRMS (2014) and include improvements to public data, community awareness and the development of a pilot monitoring and

255

warning system for groundwater flood risk. The remaining five involve the Environment Agency working with councils and communities plus a number of caravan parks to create, develop or update Community Flood Plans and flood warden schemes; improving flood warning quality; ensuring communities understand the benefits of fully registering to FWD and where possible gain registration, with an aspiration of gaining 80% full registration. Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population There are seven measures associated with recovery and review. Three of these come from the North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS (2015) and involve developing clear protocols and processes for the assessment and investigation of flooding incidents, embedding them in the authority and refining data capture protocols and processes for capture and strategic analysis of flood incident data. Four actions come from the City of York Council LFRMS (2014). They include within the City of York Council administrative area:  Delivering investigations in accordance with Section 19 of the FWMA  Developing and improving existing Flood Risk Geographical Information Systems data and databases  Developing remote access and input capabilities for flood risk management usage and data entry in the field  Installing a localised network of rain gauges

It should be noted that in response to the winter 2015/16 flooding in York, a review is being carried out by all responsible RMAs. As well as this, an independent review has been commissioned by City of York Council. The recommendations of these reviews will be taken forward where appropriate.

256

3.14. The Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment is extraordinarily diverse, with a population of around 2.5 million. It extends from the headwaters of the River Tame in the Black Country to its confluence with the River Trent at Alrewas and then downstream on the River Trent to its confluence with the River Dove at Newton Solney. The catchment incorporates the heavily urbanized areas of Birmingham, Walsall, Sandwell, and the eastern parts of Wolverhampton and Dudley, with the associated Birmingham Canal Navigations, the most extensive canal network of any urban area in the UK. More rural and intensive agricultural areas are found in the eastern and southerly parts of the catchment. The heavily urbanised headwaters of the River Tame are characterised by the Willenhall and Oldbury arms of the River Tame that meet at Bescot. The river then runs through north Birmingham before feeding into a series of purification lakes at Lea Marston, after which it passes Tamworth and the National Memorial Arboretum, before joining the River Trent at Alrewas. The main tributaries serving the Tame are the Rivers Rea, Cole, Bourne, Blythe, Anker and Sence. The upland part of the management catchment is generally referred to as Birmingham and the Black Country (made up of Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton Councils). The upper River Tame runs through the heart of Birmingham and the Black Country, often with the major M5 and M6 motorways elevated above the watercourse. Downstream of Birmingham, the River Tame becomes more natural and less confined as it flows towards Tamworth. Here the Bourne Brook has its confluence with the River Tame on the edge of Drayton Manor Amusement park. The M42 runs generally north/south through the catchment, passing just to the east of Solihull and Tamworth. The eastern part of the catchment is drained by the River Anker and its tributaries covering Nuneaton and North Warwickshire and the River Sence draining Coalville and North West Leicestershire. The River Anker then has its confluence with the River Tame in Tamworth. North of Tamworth, the River Tame joins the River Trent and here the Trent Valley is broad and contains areas of quarrying, the Trent and Mersey Canal and the Burton to Lichfield railway line. The River Mease flows in to the Trent from the east, draining parts of North West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire. At the northern extreme of the catchment the Trent is joined by the River Dove to the north of Burton upon Trent. The catchment is bordered by four others in the Humber RBD – Trent Valley Staffordshire, Dove, Lower Trent and Erewash and Soar. It is also bordered by two others in the Severn RBD – Severn Middle Worcestershire and Avon Warwickshire.

257

Figure 74: Overview map of the Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment

258

Topography The Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment is very varied in its landscape, is generally low lying (between 50m to 290m AOD) and is gently undulating. However, ground levels are relatively high in the south west of the catchment where the River Tame rises south of Walsall and flows through Birmingham into the lower broad flat floodplains of the Tame and Trent confluence. The urban headwaters of the Tame have been heavily modified as they flow from the Black Country Plateau and through the Birmingham conurbation with river channels being widened and straightened to improve flow capacity. In Birmingham and the Black Country the Tame was heavily engineered in the 1970s to convey most flood flows within the channel. To the south east of the River Tame the Rivers Cole and Blythe flow northwards through the urban fringe. To the north of Birmingham the Bourne/Black Brook flows east towards the Tame. The Anker, joined by the Sence at Atherstone, flows in a north-westerly direction through a mix of agricultural and urban areas to join the Tame at Tamworth. Further downstream the Tame flows into the Trent near Alrewas, which then meanders in a wide floodplain northeast through Burton upon Trent. The Mease also joins the Trent near Alrewas, having travelled westwards through good quality agricultural land interspersed with small villages. Geology and soils The northern and central parts of the catchment area lie across the eastern part of the Birmingham plateau, which comprises two uplifted blocks of older Palaeozoic strata. These are separated by an area of Triassic rocks, the Knowle Basin, which is mostly covered by glacial drift. The central area (Knowle Basin) is lower lying than the adjacent Palaeozoic area and is largely underlain by Mercia Mudstones and covered by glacial sands, gravels or till. This gives rise to a gently rolling landform, cut by the river Blythe and its tributaries. The eastern area is a dissected plateau consisting of uplifted Carboniferous and older Palaeozoic and ‘Precambrian’ rocks, rising to 180m AOD near Corley. Most of the plateau is occupied by Upper Carboniferous red mudstone and sandstone. Cambrian and Precambrian rocks form narrow outcrops along the north-eastern edge of the plateau, where they are faulted against Triassic strata to present a steep scarp towards the Mease/Sence Lowlands. The Carboniferous rocks are cut off sharply to the west by a boundary fault which produces a pronounced edge to the plateau adjacent to the Tame and Blythe valleys. The area is dominated by the Triassic Mercia Mudstones which give rise to productive, reddish clay soils but are partially overlaid by glacial till in the east. Outcrops of Triassic sandstone extend across the area southwards and westwards from the edge of the coalfield, supporting well drained sandy soils. Smaller streams drain towards the north-west directly into the Trent and have carved out more undulating landforms. Towards Lichfield, the ‘Bunter Pebble Beds’ pass up into softer red and buff sandstones which, in turn, give way locally to red mudstones of the Mercia Mudstone Group. The Triassic rocks are largely concealed by drift in the west but come to crop in the east. Much of the catchment is underlain by loamy soils which are moderately well drained but in the lower lying parts of the catchment can be seasonally waterlogged. The catchment runoff can therefore be quite variable and when waterlogged will result in a rapid response with high runoff rates. The sandy soils which occur between Birmingham and Lichfield tend to be better drained and much more permeable. However, they also tend to be more susceptible to soil erosion, particularly where they are found on steeper slopes.

259

Land use and land management The catchment is characterised by mainly good to moderate quality agricultural land, with The upland part of the catchment area is heavily urbanised with patches of open space in the form of formal open areas such as parks and golf courses, as well as derelict land, fragmented farmland, scrub and young woodland. This catchment contains much of the metropolitan area of Birmingham, which is the second largest city in the UK. The canals are a significant landscape feature; there are over 100 miles of canals within the Birmingham Canal Navigations. Motorways, the NEC, Birmingham Airport and urban development dominate the landscape. Moving downstream, the area around the Tame becomes a fragmented landscape of pastoral and arable land intermixed with urban development. In this area the effects of quarrying are obvious with active and water-filled disused pits present. Many restored pits are now used for water sports or informal recreation purposes, such as Kingsbury Water Park. At Lea Marston the River Tame flows through a series of purification lakes and treated sewage effluent discharged into the catchment upstream contributes over fifty percent of the average flow in the river. The landscape is influenced by development, including the expansion of urban areas and out of town retail developments and industrial estates such as at Tamworth and Burton upon Trent. Pastoral land is more commonly located alongside the rivers, while the main areas of arable farming are found on slightly elevated and better draining river terraces. The catchment incorporates the River Trent between its confluences with the River Tame at Alrewas and the River Dove at Newton Solney and is characterized by sand and gravel extraction within the Trent floodplain. It includes the conurbation of Burton upon Trent, where several breweries abstract groundwater from the Sherwood Sandstone. The Trent and Mersey canal joins the Trent for a short section at Alrewas and the entire catchment is within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. Water quality in the catchment is impacted by pressures originating from the upstream catchments of the River Tame and River Trent draining Birmingham and Stoke respectively. Further east towards the River Anker the legacy of mining activities is strong, with old colliery spoil sites and mining subsidence which has created a series of wetlands at Alvecote. Hydrology The average rainfall in the catchment is 690mm per annum. Although the main geology is moderately permeable, drainage is impeded by the overlying loamy clay soil. In addition, the headwaters of the Tame upstream of Walsall drain relatively high, sloping ground resulting in a fast run-off response to rainfall. The combined effect of high run-off volumes upstream and rapid high run-off volumes from the significant urban coverage results in frequent fluvial and surface water flooding following a storm event. Downstream of the major urban area at Coleshill, the watercourse turns sharply northward towards Tamworth and the River Trent. On the bend the Tame is joined by the River Blythe, which rises northeast of Redditch and flows generally northward via Solihull to join the Tame. Upstream of this confluence is a major outfall from Minworth Sewage Treatment Works STW, which serves a large part of the Birmingham and Black Country conurbation and affects the flow regime in the River Tame. Immediately before its confluence with the Tame, the Blythe is joined on the left bank by its only significant tributary, the River Cole. This catchment drains parts of east Birmingham where there have been flooding problems in the past. Between Coleshill and Tamworth, the channel of the River Tame becomes wider and flatter and is flanked on both banks by numerous lakes, remnants of previous clay

260

and gravel pit mining activity. At Tamworth the Tame is joined by another significant tributary the River Anker which rises near Nuneaton. The river flows north-west to Tamworth, parallel to the Coventry Canal. The River Anker drains the Charnwood area including Hinckley, Coalville and Nuneaton on its route. The elevated Charnwood area is drained by a network of several small, steep, fast flowing streams which respond rapidly to rainfall. Soil erosion is prevalent in this area as sediment from softer mudstones in the higher ground is transported by fast flows to the much flatter channel of the River Tame where the deposited sediment reduces the channel capacity. Land management could be important in this catchment to control flood risk. Downstream of Tamworth, the Tame meanders northward past the villages of Hopwas and Elford to join the Trent immediately downstream of Alrewas. The River Mease drains a similar size catchment to the River Blithe but is different in most other respects and receives slightly lower rainfall of about 650mm per annum. The Mease rises in Ashby-de-la-Zouch and flows south to Measham before curving westward to join the Trent immediately downstream of the River Tame confluence at Alrewas. The Mease drains the elevated Charnwood area which is characterised by a number of small, fast flowing streams with a rapid run-off response to rainfall draining east to the Soar and west to the Mease and Tame. The softer mudstones in this area combined with fast flowing water make it vulnerable to soil erosion. Fast flowing streams drain the higher ground and transfer sediment down to the much flatter reaches of the Lower Mease and Upper Trent where it is deposited and reduces channel capacity. Land management could play an important role in influencing flood risk. Downstream of Burton upon Trent, the Trent is joined on its left bank by the River Dove. The natural environment In the urbanised parts of the catchment physical modifications to accommodate urbanisation and reduce flooding have damaged the habitat for wildlife. Other pressures on the water environment include contaminated urban runoff and treated sewage effluent. Historical industrial activity has left a legacy of contaminated land in some areas that has resulted in localised pollution of groundwater. The River Blythe, forms part of a designated drinking water protected area and is a SSSI, being a particularly fine example of a lowland river on clay. Botanically the Blythe is one of the richest rivers in lowland England and has a clear succession of plant communities. The River Mease is a designated SSSI and a SAC, supporting populations of spined loach and bullhead, but does not currently meet its conservation objective due to high phosphate levels. The historic environment There are no world heritage sites located within the Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment. There is one historic battlefield from the Battle of Bosworth in the eastern part of the catchment. The River Sence flows through this site. There are a large number of SAMs throughout the area as well as 26 Registered Parks and Gardens, the largest of which is Sutton Park in Sutton Coldfield. In addition, there are a large number of Listed Buildings and conservation areas within the catchment. As with other environmental designations, these will be taken into account when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes.

261

History of flooding The management catchment has a long history of flooding dating as far back as the 13th Century in Burton upon Trent. Of the approximate 2.5million people living in the management catchment, about 80,000 of them live in areas that have a risk of river flooding. Many of these are protected by major flood defence schemes, for example Tamworth (over 2,000 people) and Burton upon Trent (over 7,000). Flooding in the urban parts of the catchment area is caused by a complex range of mechanisms including:  insufficient capacity of the main rivers passing through the urban areas, resulting in floodplain inundation, overtopping of embankments, surcharging of sewers and drains and by-passing intended flow routes into undefended areas  urban drainage systems being overwhelmed by heavy rain and rapid run-off from impervious surfaces; the urban drainage system being unable to discharge into receiving watercourses due to high water levels  combined storm water and foul water systems being overwhelmed and spilling sewage into watercourses and into existing flood water In June/July 2007 exceptional rainfall caused extensive fluvial and surface water flooding to properties, infrastructure and agricultural land in parts of the catchment. The area of Witton in Birmingham as well as Fazeley and Elford near Tamworth were badly affected. In June 2012 severe thunderstorms brought locally torrential rain over the West Midlands. This rainfall was particularly intense over the Birmingham area, with 31mm being recorded in 1 hour at one rain gauge. Due to the extreme nature of this event a significant number of properties were flooded in Birmingham, Birmingham Airport was temporarily closed and there was significant disruption to the West and East Coast main railway lines and roads in the West Midlands conurbation. Areas of Solihull including Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Meriden are also at risk from both rivers and surface water and have been affected by flooding in recent years. A great deal of the built environment, not specifically designed as flood defences, lines the rivers through Birmingham. Flood attenuation (both off-line and on-line storage) also forms an important element of the flood defences and there are flood storage areas at Sheepwash balancing ponds, Ocker Hill balancing pond, Bescot controlled washland, Forge Mill Lake at Sandwell Valley and Perry Hall Playing Fields. The recently completed Lower Tame Flood Risk Management Scheme aims to reduce the risk of flooding to over 1,000 residential properties in the Coton, Fazeley, Kingsbury and Whitacre Heath areas. There are also plans to reduce flood risk to approximately 1,400 properties at risk from the River Tame in Perry Barr and Witton, Birmingham. An Environment Agency led scheme which took forward recommendations from the River Tame Flood Risk Management Strategy which set out a plan to reduce flood risk on the River Tame over the next 100 years (2009 to 2109). It consisted of four schemes: • Coton, Tamworth: Construction of new flood banks and flood walls to reduce the risk of flooding to 463 properties in the area • Fazeley, Tamworth: Raising of existing flood banks and construction of flood banks and flood walls as well as measures to improve management of surface water to reduce the risk of flooding to 216 properties in the area • Whitacre Heath: Raising and extending flood banks and construction of new flood banks reduce flood risk to 304 properties in the area

262

• Kingsbury: Construction of a new flood bank and flood wall to reduce the risk of flooding to 216 properties in the area

Improvements to the River Trent flood defences in Burton upon Trent were completed in 2007 and they protect more than 7,000 people from flooding. In Nuneaton the River Anker has its flood flows diverted around the town in a major flood relief channel. Elsewhere the watercourses are relatively natural with few flood defences. Flooding occurs as a result of overtopping of river banks or embankments. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk and coastal erosion within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea In this management catchment there are approximately 80,500 people at risk from river flooding, representing approximately 3% of the total population. Nearly 11,500 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers of which around 1,500 are considered to be high risk. Approximately 7% of agricultural land within the catchment is at risk of flooding with around 3,300ha being at high risk. Table 52: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 2,461,150 6,450 24,650 49,350 150 No of services: 2,840 40 60 100 <10 Risk to economic activity No of non-residential 160,000 1,500 2,650 7,200 50 properties: No of airports: 1 0 0 0 0 Roads (km): 1,080 20 30 40 0 Railway (km): 390 10 10 30 0 Agricultural land (ha): 108,400 3,250 2,200 1,950 10 Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing 0 - - - - waters within 50m: No of EPR installations within 101 4 8 16 0 50m: SAC (ha): <50 <50 0 0 0 SPA (ha): 0 - - - - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 2,150 300 50 <50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2,150 50 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 850 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 4,370 80 60 200 0 No of Licensed water 660 180 70 80 0 abstractions:

263

Figure 75: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment Flooding from local sources Surface water and sewer flooding are significant issues throughout the catchment, with communities in Birmingham and Solihull having experienced surface water flooding in recent years. The Flood Maps for Surface Water show the extent to which surface water flooding could affect the catchment.

264

Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. More details about risks, objectives and measures associated with these risks will be included in LFRMS being produced by Birmingham, Solihull, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire and Warwickshire LLFAs.

Figure 76: Flooding from surface water: Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment

265

Flooding from reservoirs There are a number of large raised reservoirs within the catchment, used for water supply, irrigation, and flood storage. These include flood storage reservoirs at Sheepwash, Ocker Hill, Bescot, Sandwell Valley and Perry Hall which are part of the flood defences in Birmingham. There are approximately 85,200 people at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Tame, Anker and Mease catchment representing around 3% of the total population. Approximately 9,700 non-residential properties are also at risk as well as around 4,000ha of agricultural land. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Table 53: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 2,461,150 85,200 No of services: 2,840 150

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 160,000 9,700 No of airports: 1 0 Roads (km): 1,080 90 Railway (km): 390 40 Agricultural land (ha): 108,400 4,150

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 50m: 0 - No of EPR installations within 50m: 101 19 SAC (ha): <50 <50 SPA (ha): 0 - RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 2,150 250 Parks and Gardens (ha): 2,150 150 SAMs (ha): 850 50 No of Listed Buildings: 4,370 270 No of Licensed water abstractions: 660 210

266

Figure 77: Flooding from reservoirs: Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment

267

Partnership working Within the catchment, RMAs have developed good working relationships with each other and other interested parties. Severn Trent Water provides the water and sewerage in this catchment and they actively participate in partnership working to identify and address flood risk issues within the catchment. With over 2,000 properties at risk of flooding in the River Rea catchment in Birmingham, the Environment Agency, Birmingham City Council and Severn Trent Water have formed a partnership to develop options and explore funding opportunities to reduce flood risk and deliver environmental improvements. Selly Park South Flood Action Group Following flooding from the River Rea in Birmingham in 2008, the Selly Park South Flood Action Group was formed by the Neighbourhood Forum. This group worked with the Resilience Team at Birmingham City Council and the Environment Agency to develop a Flood Action Plan. When the Environment Agency issues a Flood Alert or Flood Warning for Selly Park, the volunteers of the Flood Action Group work to keep residents informed of the situation and to assist them with defending their homes, supported by the City Council and the Environment Agency. The local website www.sellyparksouth.org.uk also provides important information on local flooding for residents and volunteers. Every year the Flood Action Group volunteers take part in a ‘live exercise’ to test the effectiveness of the Flood Plan and to ensure that any future flood events are responded to as efficiently as possible. It is also important that all partners work together and know what to expect Conclusions and objectives for the Tame, Anker and Mease catchment The Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment is extraordinarily diverse stretching from Birmingham and the Black Country to rural Leicestershire, East Staffordshire and North Warwickshire, with a population of around 2.5 million people. The upper reaches of the Tame drain relatively high ground resulting in rapid runoff following heavy rainfall. The combination of this and high volumes of runoff from urban areas can result in frequent flooding from rivers and surface water following storm events. Approximately 80,500 people are at risk of flooding from rivers, representing around 3% of the total population. Around 7% of the agricultural land within the catchment is also at risk of flooding. There are a number of reservoirs within the catchment with around 3% of the population residing within the maximum extent of flooding. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. The Tame and its headwaters rise within one of the largest conurbations in the country. This has a profound impact and influence on the landscape and waters downstream and yet the catchment also has rivers of exceptional quality. Many of the watercourses across the catchment are heavily modified or degraded in other ways. Improving the structure and ecological health of watercourses can greatly improve the resilience of the network to pollution, reduce peak flows and ameliorate flooding and reduce the impact of extreme events on wildlife. A sustainable approach to flood risk management should consider the natural functions of rivers and reduce long term dependence on raised flood defences. This includes identifying opportunities to better utilise areas of natural floodplain to store flood waters and to attenuate rainwater that will reduce flood risk within this

268

management catchment and those further downstream. Land management could play an important role in managing flood risk, particularly in the eastern parts of the catchment Partnership working by the Environment Agency, LLFAs, other RMAs, affected communities and developers will be vital in order to raise the necessary funds for new viable schemes and deliver cost effective and environmentally acceptable solutions for managing flood risk across the catchment. This approach has already been adopted in Birmingham where a number of different organisations have joined together to form the River Rea Partnership which is looking to deliver community flood defence assets across the city: http://www.riverreapartnership.co.uk Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 54 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 54: Relevant objectives: Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment

269

 Sheepy Magna, Leicestershire Four measures are associated with the maintenance and improvement of existing flood defences in the catchment, for example in Nuneaton and West Bromwich. Other measures relate to the management of surface water, for example by using and retrofitting SuDS as well as attenuating flows and making space for water and providing additional capacity to accommodate climate change. Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use 22 measures have been identified which will prevent flood damage of which 16 are associated with preventing inappropriate development in floodplains and managing / reducing runoff through the planning process. Other measures include 6 which relate to avoiding further culverting, de-culverting wherever possible and re- naturalising watercourses wherever practical in order to make space for water. There are also measures associated with asset assessment and refurbishment, watercourse maintenance and incorporating resilience measures to allow adaptation to climate change. Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood 35 measures have been identified that will deliver preparedness. These include:  10 measures aiming to develop and promote a better understanding of flood risk in the catchment including measures associated with carrying out new or improving existing data and modelling  Three measures relating to maintaining and improving the accuracy of flood warnings, expanding the service where feasible and encouraging people to sign up for FWD  Seven measures to ensure new development is safe and seeking opportunities through the planning process to reduce existing and future flood risk  Three measures associated with maintaining flood risk management assets and carrying out river and watercourse maintenance where beneficial and subject to available funding  Two measures seeking to minimise negative impacts of flooding on designated sites Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population Two measures associated with recovery and review have been identified. These relate to restoring and enhancing rivers to return them to their natural state and restoring floodplains to reduce the impact of flooding downstream and de-culverting watercourses wherever possible.

270

3.15. The Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment

Introduction to the catchment The Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment is approximately 1,240km2 in size, and is mainly rural, with a population of over 267,195. The major tributaries of the Wharfe and Lower Ouse are the Rivers Skirfare, Dibb and Washburn, Collingham Beck, Firgreen Beck, Cock Beck and The Fleet. The largest of these is the River Washburn, which is heavily reservoired. The headwaters of the main river systems lie within the Yorkshire Dales National Park, arising from Hubberholme in Langstrothdale to its confluence with the River Ouse, near Cawood. This section of the catchment is characterised by the typical limestone scenery of pasture and rocky outcrops. The valley is generally steep-sided with a flat valley bottom where a number of small communities are situated, principally Burnsall, Kettlewell, Bolton Bridge and the largest, Grassington. The headwaters are characterised by steeper river gradients which flow through generally rural areas which are scattered by small urban settlements. In contrast, downstream on the River Wharfe, the area is generally low lying with wide floodplains. Downstream the Wharfe Valley broadens out and is a significant transport corridor with large settlements having developed. The major communities are Addingham, Ilkley, Burley, Otley, Pool and Collingham before the A1 is reached south of Wetherby. Tributaries which join the Wharfe in this section include Town Beck at Addingham, Backstone Beck at Ilkley, and Burley Beck at Burley-in- Wharfedale. East of the A1 the largest town is Tadcaster, other villages downstream being Ulleskelf, Newton Kyme and Ryther. This section of the Wharfe has a broad natural floodplain, linked to that of the River Ouse, which it joins at Cawood. From Tadcaster downstream flows in the Wharfe are increasingly influenced by the tidal Ouse. The tidal limit of the River Wharfe is at the weir in Tadcaster town. In the Lower Ouse section of the management catchment is the urban area of Selby which is at risk from a combination of fluvial and tidal flooding. Over 95% of this catchment comprises agricultural land. This is significantly important to the local economy as nearly 50% of this is classified as between grade 1 and 3: excellent to moderate quality productive land. The management catchment is bordered by five others in the Yorkshire and North East Region, the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Ouse, Derwent Humber, Hull and East Riding, Don and Rother, and Aire and Calder. It is also bordered by the Ribble management catchment, which is located within the North West RBD. This RBD is managed by Environment Agency’s North West Region.

271

Figure 78: Overview map of the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment

272

Topography The headwaters of the River Wharfe rise in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and ground elevations reach 735m. The eastern and southern region of the catchment is relatively flat and characterised by the gently undulating plains of the Vale of York where the upland tributaries flow into the River Ouse and subsequently into the tidal River Ouse downstream in the far southeast of the catchment. The difference in elevations between the north and south of the catchment has a strong influence on how the rivers respond to high flows. In the steeper northwest, rainfall will turn rapidly into surface runoff flowing quickly down steep watercourses. Rainfall in the upland areas can also be localised, resulting in runoff leading to flooding impacting upon settlements in one valley, with no flooding recorded in adjacent valleys. In contrast the flat nature of the southeast of the catchment will generally mean that the onset of any flooding being less rapid and flow velocities lower. Steeper river gradients and therefore higher flow velocities in the upper parts of the catchment also give greater erosive power to the rivers. Deposition of large amounts of sediment, as has happened in the upper reaches of the Wharfe through Deepdale, reduces the capacity of the river to contain larger flows and consequently increases flood risk. Geology and soils Various solid geological bands are present within the catchment and generally run in a north to south direction. Carboniferous limestone is present in the higher elevations to the west of the catchment, giving way to Millstone grit in the central catchment. This geology is intersected by alternating bands of magnesium limestone and Permian mudstone, passing through the towns of Wetherby and Tadcaster. Permian and Triassic sandstones dominate where the River Wharfe drains in the River Ouse around the settlement of Selby. The west and northwest of the catchment are dominated by very shallow, loamy or humose-loamy, free draining upland soils (peat and podzolic), interrupted by extensive bare rock crags, scree and limestone pavement. Deeper pockets of glacial drift occur, creating deeper free-draining loamy soils and deep well-drained silty soils, which may become seasonally waterlogged in winter. The elevated topography combined with generally shallow loamy soils and well fissured geology in this area ensures high through flow rates into watercourses and drainage networks. Although there are also permeable rock aquifers here, the rapid drainage of the soil and geology of this area means the presence of high groundwater levels and the potential for groundwater flooding is extremely low. In the southeast of the catchment, mudstone and clays predominate in the Ouse. Selby is characterised by this soil type (groundwater and surface water gley soils), which display varying degrees of throughflow to the watercourse network. The predominance of impermeable soils such as mudstone and clays over most of these areas means water moves slowly into the watercourse network. Drainage of water across these areas is very poor and rather than throughflow, enhanced runoff rates are likely to be observed. Land use and land management Agricultural land is significantly important to the local economy in the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment. It is characterised by excellent to moderate quality agricultural land. In the north the land is generally Grade 5 (385km2) with the middle reaches becoming Grade 3 (296.1km2). In the lower lying areas the land becomes the higher Grade 2 (306km2), with a small area of Grade 1 (4km2) around the confluence with the Ouse at Barmby-on-the-Marsh. The majority of the land within the catchment is used for arable and managed grassland. In comparison only

273

a small proportion of the land area is urban. Large urban areas include Ilkley, Otley, Tadcaster and Selby. Hydrology Rainfall distribution throughout the catchment is dominated by the region’s topography. The Pennine Hills run down the spine of England and present a barrier to passing weather systems. This barrier forces the system up and over the hills and creates a shadow effect on the eastern side of the hills, resulting in lower annual rainfall totals in eastern England compared with areas to the west of the Pennines. This effect leads to rainfall totals being higher in the upland areas of the management catchment. As the upland areas receive a much larger volume of rainfall, between 550-1,800mm per year it follows that much larger flows are often generated in the upland area in comparison to the lowland area, which receives rainfall of between 550-700mm per year. The natural environment The catchment has a wealth of environmental designations of international, national, regional and local nature conservation importance. The FRMP concentrates on the internationally and nationally designated sites, as these provide the most significant opportunities and constraints to flood risk management on a catchment scale. The smaller sites of local importance will be taken into account in the future, when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. There are 3 SACs (Craven Limestone Complex, North Pennine Moors and South Pennine Moors) and 2 SPAs (North Pennine Moors and South Pennine Moors Phase 2) in the catchment. The North Pennine Moors SPA is by far the most extensive and is important for its mix of blanket bog and heathland and is important for the breeding of several types of rare birds such as peregrine falcons and merlins. As well as this there are 52 SSSIs which include a wide variety of different habitats including upland moorland habitats and upland limestone habitats and form the most significant areas of designated habitat. Such areas support a wide range of animals and plants, and are particularly important for their upland breeding birds e.g. merlin, golden plover. There are 2 NNRs (Skipwith Common and Scoska Wood) as well as 4 LNRs (Barlow Common, Chevin Forest Park, Sun Lane, Burley in Wharfedale and Ben Rhydding Gravel Pits). One National Park lies within the catchment, the Yorkshire Dales National Park (Authority). It is important due to its wealth of habitats and wildlife. The south of the park displays one of the best examples in Britain of classic limestone scenery with its crags, pavements and extensive cave systems. The north is characterised by valleys with distinctive stepped profiles separated by extensive moorland plateaux. This is a landscape shaped by ice, with significant glacial and post-glacial landforms and features, including Malham Tarn, a post glacial lake. The area is of international biodiversity importance and includes rare wet meadows and pastures, limestone pavement and limestone woodland and scrub. The historic environment There are no world heritage sites within the catchment, however, there are approximately 318 SAMs. The types of monuments that have been scheduled in the area include prehistoric stone carvings, stone circles, barrows and funerary monuments and settlement remains. As well as this there are 9 Registered Parks and Gardens as listed below:  Nun Appleton Hall – Grade II;  Harewood House – Grade I;  Bramham Park – Grade I  Heathcote - Ilkley – Grade II;

274

 Ledston Hall and Park – Grade II*;  High Royds Hospital – Grade II;  Lotherton Hall – Grade II;  Parcevall Hall – Grade II;  Moreby Hall – Grade II; There is one registered battlefield: the Battle of Towton which took place in 1461 during the English Wars of the Roses. The area has remained essentially unchanged since the battle, being arable land. As well as these, there are 1,976 Listed Buildings and 26 conservations areas within the catchment. As with local environmental designations, their importance is recognised and they will be taken into account in the future when assessing any potential impacts of individual flood management strategies and schemes. History of flooding There is a long history of flooding within the management catchment, most recently in 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2012 and 2015. Communities affected by these floods include Bolton Bridge, Addingham, Burley in Wharfedale, Ilkley, Otley, Castley, Bramham, Tadcaster, Ulleskelf, Ryther, Bolton Percy, Cawood and Selby. The headwaters of the Wharfe generate large volumes of runoff producing large river flows. The Wharfe at Addingham shows a response time between peak rainfall and peak flow of 8 hours. This indicates a high rate of runoff. In contrast for the Wharfe at Tadcaster, the response time is much slower; 17 hours. The nature of the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment is such that the headwater catchments generate very large river flows whereas the downstream reaches do not receive as much rainfall and generate less runoff. This means that the lowland sections of the catchment contribute less water to the river Wharfe. For the community of Addingham, records of flooding date back to 1936 with regular flood events in the late 1970s and 1980s. In October 2000 several properties on North Street were flooded. In Ilkley there are no formal defences on either bank of the river resulting in a number of residential and commercial properties being at risk. In February 2002, 12 properties flooded including an extensive area of the golf course upstream of the Old Bridge. In January 2005, 14 properties were flooded. In the downstream reaches at Bramham and Tadcaster, there are also instances of historical flooding. In June 2007 at Bramham, 10 properties were estimated to have flooded and in October 2000 at Tadcaster, 30 properties flooded as a result of overtopping of defences. In December 2015, around 80 properties were affected by flooding in Tadcaster, again as a result of overtopping of the flood defences. Between the 23rd and 25th September 2012 more than two months’ worth of rain fell in several locations across Yorkshire and record river levels were seen. Around 190 properties flooded across the Yorkshire Area from either fluvial, surface water or from other sources. For this event, 7,500 flood warnings were issued to businesses and residents across Yorkshire. On the 26th September 2012 the River Wharfe reached 3.70m. In Tadcaster many local businesses were flooded and the main bridge through the town was closed, due to structural concerns, effectively cutting the town in half. At Eccup rain gauge in the lower Wharfe river catchment, 85.8mm of rain was recorded over the three day period in September. That is 130% of the average annual rainfall for the month. In the community of Selby 300 properties were flooded in November 2000, when prolonged severe rainfall led to the flooding of 12,000 homes nationwide. The river Ouse reached its highest ever recorded level.

275

In December 2015, significant flooding was experienced across the north of England due to the close succession of storms Desmond, Eva and Frank. Disruption was high throughout the area including Tadcaster where the road bridge was again closed as a result of surface water flooding prior to defences being overtopped. This was as a result of the highest recorded flood levels on the river Wharfe. The bridge was damaged and a temporary footbridge put in place to connect the two sides of the community whilst the road bridge is being reconstructed. Flood risk maps and statistics The following sections provide key statistics relating to different sources of flood risk within the management catchment. Flooding from rivers and the sea There are many urban areas at risk of flooding from the River Wharfe. Addingham, Ilkley, Otley, Burley-in-Wharfedale, Collingham, Cawood, Wetherby and Tadcaster all suffer to some extent from flooding. Flood peaks are generated by heavy rainfall in the upper catchment, but flood risk is not severe until the town of Addingham is reached further downstream. The community of Selby is mainly affected by tidal events from the River Ouse. The largest area at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea is in the lower reaches of the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment. Approximately 34,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, representing approximately 17% of the total population. Approximately 6,000 non- residential properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, half of which are at low risk and only 2% at high risk. Around 27% of the agricultural land within the catchment is at risk with most (approximately 7,500ha) being at low risk. The upper reaches of the River Wharfe are mainly rural where as the lower reaches including the Lower Ouse have been engineered over the years, initially to improve navigation to York. These lower reaches include many areas of storage and washlands. The influence of the tide in the lower reaches brings a large influx of mud sections of which has been dredged historically purely to keep the navigation route open. The River Wharfe confluences with the River Ouse below its tidal limit at Naburn Weir. This weir has prevented the tide from proceeding upstream and has improved navigation in York since its installation in 1759. The tidal limit on the River Wharfe is just upstream at Ulleskelf. A relatively narrow floodplain runs through the towns of Otley and Ilkley. Running approximately with the River Wharfe is the A65 and A660 which are both known to have been affected by high flood water.

276

Figure 79: National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) in the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment

277

Table 55: Summary of flood risk from rivers and sea: Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment

Total in High Medium Low Very management risk risk risk low catchment risk Risk to people No of people: 197,100 1,350 13,550 19,100 <50 No of services: 570 20 40 60 0

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential 33,700 500 2100 3500 <50 properties: No of airports: 0 - - - - Roads (km): 280 <10 <10 <10 0 Railway (km): 120 <10 <10 <10 0 Agricultural land (ha): 68,800 4,600 6,100 7,550 <50

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated 0 - - - - bathing waters within 50m: No of EPR installations 26 1 6 0 0 within 50m: SAC (ha): 13,300 <50 <50 <50 0 SPA (ha): 10,250 <50 <50 <50 0 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - - - - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - - - - SSSI (ha): 17,450 200 100 50 0 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,300 50 <50 <50 0 SAMs (ha): 700 <50 <50 <50 0 No of Listed Buildings: 2,010 100 70 230 0 No of Licensed water 350 70 40 30 0 abstractions: 0 0 0 0 0 Flooding from local sources Flooding from ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water fall under the remit of LLFAs. In preparing the Humber FRMP North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council have included their local information regarding these sources of flooding – as further defines in their published LFRMS. As illustrated in Figure 80 a large area of the catchment is affected by surface water flooding. These risks are taken into account in the relevant LFRMS and also represented within SFRA. SFRAs assess the different levels of flood risk in a local authority area and map these to assist with statutory land use planning. They provide concise information on flood risk issues, which assist planning officers in the preparation of the Local Plans and in the assessment of future planning applications. The relevant SFRAs for this catchment can be viewed at:  City of York SFRA 2013  Bradford SFRA 2009  Selby Level 1 SFRA 2008:  Leeds SFRA 2007  The North West Yorkshire SFRA (2009) (covers Harrogate Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council and Craven District Council) Together the LFRMS and SFRAs provide a comprehensive assessment of local flood risk within the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment.

278

Figure 80: Flooding from surface water: Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment

279

Flooding from reservoirs There are 26 reservoirs in the catchment. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 29,000 people are at risk of flooding from reservoirs in the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment, representing just 14% of the total population. Approximately 4,700 non-residential properties are at risk as well as nearly 14,000 ha of agricultural land. International environmental designations are at risk as well as number of historic assets, for example 290 listed building and 150ha of registered parks and gardens. Table 56: Summary of flood risk from reservoir: Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment

Total in Maximum management extent of catchment flooding Risk to people: No of people: 197,100 29,250 No of services: 570 100

Risk to economic activity No of non-residential properties: 33,700 4,700 No of airports: 0 - Roads (km): 280 30 Railway (km): 120 20 Agricultural land (ha): 68,800 14,000

Risk to the natural and historic environment No of EU designated bathing waters within 0 - 50m: No of EPR installations within 50m: 26 7 SAC (ha): 13,300 <50 SPA (ha): 10,250 <50 RAMSAR site (ha): 0 - World Heritage Site (ha): 0 - SSSI (ha): 17,450 100 Parks and Gardens (ha): 1,300 150 SAMs (ha): 700 <50 No of Listed Buildings: 2,010 290 No of Licensed water abstractions: 350 110

280

Figure 81: Flooding from reservoirs: Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment

281

€110m from the EU Structural and Investment Information regarding LEPs can be found here: Fund through the LEP. The partnership predicts that investment which promotes business to  York, North Yorkshire and grow, enlarge the local agritech and renewable East Riding LEP: energy sector, improve the transport http://www.businessinspiredgr infrastructure and unlock land for residential owth.com/ developments could result in up to £3bn of further economic growth across the region. A few key development sites located within FRAs are planned within the catchments. Drax is the largest coal-fired power station in the UK located near Selby has previously made a £700m investment to equip itself for biomass and has now been shortlisted for a £1bn carbon capture and storage investment. Within the Strategic Economic Plan, Selby has been identified as a Growth area which will be the focus for new housing and employment development, particularly around Olympia Park. As well as this, Sherburn in Elmet has been recognised for its potential regarding employment development at The Proving Ground near the existing business park. As noted, these locations are affected by flooding and therefore the need for sustainable development is a priority for the Environment Agency and LLFA. This vision for development and regeneration is summarised through the Strategic Economic Plan as “Our vision is to make York, North Yorkshire and East Riding the place in England to grow a small business, combining a quality business location with a great quality of life.”

282

Conclusions and objectives for the Wharfe and Lower Ouse catchment The catchment is approximately 1,200km2 and is mainly rural, with a population of approximately 260,000. Agriculture accounts for 95% of the landmass in this catchment. The upper reaches of the River Wharfe are mainly rural where as the lower reaches including the Lower Ouse have been engineered over the years, initially to improve navigation to York. These lower reaches include many areas of storage and washlands. The flood risks are from both fluvial and tidal sources influenced river flooding, generated by heavy rainfall in the upper catchment and tide locked rivers downstream. The headwaters of the Wharfe generate large volumes of runoff producing large river flows. The community of Selby is affected by a combination of fluvial and tidal events from the River Ouse. In this catchment 17% of the total population, approximately 34,000 people are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The catchment contains a number of areas with environmental designations including 3 SACs, 2 SPAs, 52 SSSIs and 2 NNRs. This catchment has suffered from flooding recently in 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008 , 2012 and 2015. Communities affected by these floods include Bolton Bridge, Addingham, Burley in Wharfedale, Ilkley, Otley, Castley, Bramham, Tadcaster, Ulleskelf, Ryther, Bolton Percy and Selby. The nature of the management catchment is such that the headwater catchments generate very large river flows whereas the downstream reaches do not receive as much rainfall and generate less runoff. Selby suffered in the year 2000 floods where 300 homes were flooding when the River Ouse reached its highest ever recorded level. This event also saw flooding occurring from the River Wharfe in Addingham and Tadcaster. Significant flooding occurred more recently in Tadcaster during September 2012 when 130% of the average annual rainfall for the month in a three day period. This resulted in 190 properties being flooded in the Yorkshire area. There are 26 reservoirs in the catchment. The recently published Flood Risk Maps for Reservoirs show that around 29,000 people are at risk of flooding from Reservoirs in the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment, representing just 14% of the total population. It should be noted that although the consequences of reservoir flooding are high, the probability of reservoir failure is very low. Part A of the FRMP identifies the objectives for managing flood risk within the Humber RBD. Table 57 below indicates which of these objectives are relevant to the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment. For detailed description of these objectives see section 9 of Part A: Background and RBD wide information. Table 57: Relevant objectives: Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment

283

Reference Objective Relevant? ENVI 2 Designated Nature conservation sites  ENVI 3 Designated Heritage sites  RES 1 Reservoir flood risk  Measures across the Wharfe and Lower Ouse catchment 57 measures have been identified to manage flood risk and coastal erosion across the Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment. This includes a number of measures that have been taken from existing plans and strategies that have been provided on a voluntary basis by our partners including:  North Yorkshire County Council LFRMS x 17  City of York Council LFRMS x 19 The main focus of the measures in this catchment is around providing protection and increasing preparedness from and to flooding. A summary of measures based on protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery and review is provided below.

Protection: Structural and non structural actions to reduce the likelihood of flooding. 18 measures associated with reducing the likelihood of flooding, through structural and non structural action, have been identified in the catchment. Measures have been produced by our partners North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council within their own LFRMS. The measures can be summarised as:  The maintenance of existing assets such as culverts, river banks and river defences.  The ongoing development and delivery of a prioritised programme of projects (the MTP).  The delivery of projects which complement the objectives of the “Upper Wharfe SSSI Restoration plan”. The vision of the plan is to return the river to ecological health. A number of high profile protection measures have been identified for delivery within the first cycle of the FRMP (2015-21). These include the works proposed to refurbish Wistow Ings sluice and Barrier Bank penstocks which will reduce flood risk to 322 properties, and works to Selby lock gates and flood gates to maintain the current standard of protection into the future, to protect 674 properties.

Prevention: Measures that allow the prevention of damage caused by floods by avoiding the placement or adapting existing receptor in flood-prone areas and by promoting appropriate land-use Within the catchment a total of 15 measures are identified, of these eight being associated with the further assessment of flood risk through the development of strategies, monitoring programmes and flood risk modelling. Examples of these measures include:  Create operational catchment plans for FRR  Work to identify sustainable flood risk and drainage solutions on strategic planning and strategic development sites  Work in partnership to explore options to mitigate flood risk in South Milford Six measures have been identified relating to the adaptation of receptors to reduce the consequences of flooding. These are all taken from North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council’s LFRMS and relate to inputting to Local Development Plans, working with LEP to deliver regeneration and flood protection

284

and the role of LLFAs as statutory consultees on planning applications.

Preparedness: Informing people about flood risks what to do in the event of a flood 17 measures have been identified that deliver preparedness, 10 of which come from North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council’s LFRMS. Some of these measures include:  providing support to LRF Response Plans  develop a pilot monitoring and warning system for groundwater flood risk  develop Flood Risk Management Toolkit to support local communities  create community emergency plans in collaboration with the Emergency planning Unit Environment Agency will help develop flood warden schemes or flood plans with communities within the catchment. In addition to engagement with new communities, existing relationships between the Environment Agency and flood groups will be maintained to support their existing levels of preparedness. This includes a number of caravan parks and flood warden groups. Communities have also been identified for improving flood warning quality by determining the feasibility of developing flood forecasts on the River Wharfe, Town Beck and Bramham Beck. By making forecasting and warning improvements the Environment Agency will encourage the take up of FWD to residents and businesses to eventually achieve 80%.

Recovery and review: Returning to normal conditions as soon as possible and mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population 7 measures associated with recovery and review have been identified by North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council through their LFRMS. These measures are associated with their statutory duty under Section 19 of the FWMA, to assess and investigate flooding incidents within their authority area. It should be noted that in response to the winter 2015/16 flooding in York, a review is being carried out by all responsible RMAs. The recommendations of these reviews will be taken forward where appropriate.

285

4. The Humber Estuary Strategic Area

Strategic areas are areas where it is important to consider flood risk management across more than one sub-area, so that interested parties can work in a co-ordinated way to set out objectives, measures to manage risk, and conclusions. The Humber Estuary has been designated as a Strategic Area, as shown in Figure 82. The estuary and its tidal tributaries are covered by 8 management catchments, 6 Local Authorities, 3 Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) and several IDBs. Due to the low-lying nature of the land around the estuary, many properties and businesses in this area are at risk from tidal flooding. Flood risk management requires a strategic approach, as much of the floodplain is hydraulically connected and the presence of defences in one location may impact flooding elsewhere. The estuary is the largest British macro-tidal coastal plain estuary on the North Sea coast and drains one fifth of England. The estuary is an important resource. It is the largest trading estuary in the UK (by tonnage) and activities such as energy production, commercial and recreational fishing, agriculture, navigation with associated ports and harbours, aggregate extraction, energy production and recreation and tourism contribute to the economic importance of the estuary, and wider region. The area is currently seeing significant investment and development in the energy and renewable sector, associated with the Humber’s ‘Energy Estuary’ ambitions. The estuary and its surrounding hinterland are also biologically important and support a large number of internationally and nationally significant habitats and species. These are protected by international legal designations. The estuary has a tidal floodplain of about 115,000ha which includes the city of Hull and towns of Grimsby, Cleethorpes, and Goole; the homes of more than 400,000 people; 32,500 businesses, including major industrial and commercial properties; the country’s largest port complex; and extensive areas of high productive farmland. The focus of the Strategic Area is tidal however it is important to understand the interaction with the wider fluvial catchments. This is because a high tide coinciding with high river levels can cause significant flooding as rivers are unable to discharge into the estuary until tidal levels fall. Flooding History There have been two significant tidal surges in recent history that have resulted in widespread flooding around the estuary. On the night of 31st January 1953 a storm surge in the North Sea resulted in extreme water levels along the East Coast of England and mainland Europe. Between Yorkshire and the Thames Estuary the surge resulted in the loss of over 300 lives, damage to 24,000 homes and flooding of almost 100,000ha of land. Following the flood significant works were undertaken to improve the defences around the estuary. On December 5th 2013 another storm surge in the North Sea resulted in water levels in the estuary surpassing all previous records. As a result of an improved system of flood defences, and advances in forecasting and warning, the impacts of the extreme water levels were much less severe than in 1953. In the Humber area it is estimated that around 1,200 properties and 7,000ha of land were flooded. Whilst these are the two most significant tidal floods on record to impact the Humber estuary-wide, high water levels have resulted in localised flooding on a more frequent basis to the communities and land around the estuary.

286

Figure 82: The Humber Estuary Strategic Area

287

The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy was approved by The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in 2007 and was published in 2008. This sets out an approach to the management of the tidal defences across the estuary for the next 100 years and includes a detailed programme of works for the first 25 years. As sea levels rise, so does the risk of flooding to people and property around the estuary. The Strategy considers the impact of this and how flood risk will be managed into future. The most recent UK Climate Change Projections suggest that sea levels around the Humber will rise by up to 30cm by 2050 and the rate of rise will increase beyond this. There are a number of solutions to managing flood risk around the estuary, including the traditional approach of constructing hard flood defences as well as other solutions such as the provision of flood storage sites. One such flood storage site is located at Alkborough, where the flooding of this area during extreme high water levels reduces levels upstream on the rivers Ouse and Trent. Following the publication of the FWMA and Floods Directive (2007), along with the introduction of the Flood and Coastal Erosion Resilience Partnership Funding policy in 2011, it became clear that the programme of works in its current form needed to be updated to include the requirement to secure local contributions to deliver flood defence improvements. The Environment Agency has embarked upon an update to the Strategy which is being undertaken in partnership with the six local authorities around the estuary, as well as statutory environmental bodies and IDB representation. The updated Strategy will set out the management priorities and defence improvement programme between now and 2032 when the Strategy’s current approval expires. The current Strategy is supported by an approved Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), (2011) which sets out a programme of managed realignment to compensate for the ‘coastal squeeze’ that results from the presence of flood defences as sea levels rise. The Strategy divides the flood plain in 27 flood areas and identifies a future management approach for each of these areas. In some locations the economic case for delivering defence improvements means that schemes will not be able to be fully funded through central government. In these cases it will be necessary to find local contributions to be able to deliver schemes which provide the desired standard of protection. If this is not possible, other options for the management of flood risk may be considered, such as providing a lower standard of protection, and increasing community preparedness and resilience to flooding. The updated Strategy will give us the opportunity to consider a wider range of issues which were not covered in detail in the original Strategy. Additional information will be included on the whole-life costs of schemes, including details on the future maintenance of defences and outfall adaptation works. The WFD (2003) will be much better included in the Strategy, and details of measures which could be delivered through flood defence schemes to protect and improve the water environment will be included. Work has already been undertaken to ensure that the Strategy update will align with the Humber River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) which is due to be published by the end of 2015. The updated Humber Strategy will also include a Funding Strategy, which will identify mechanisms for securing the necessary funding to deliver flood defence works. The Humber Nature Partnership is one of the local nature partnerships established in response to the Natural Environment White Paper (2011). The Humber Nature Partnership encompasses the Humber Management Scheme, which aims to ensure that the Humber Estuary Marine Site reaches ‘favourable conservation status’ as required by the HRA. The Humber Nature Partnership is also the Catchment Partnership host for the Humber Estuary and as such has a significant role in helping

288

to identify and deliver measures to protect and improve the water environment. The Environment Agency is working closely with the Humber Nature Partnership to establish how flood risk and environmental objectives can be aligned to create more efficient mechanisms for delivery. Schemes delivery Since the publication of the Strategy in 2007 more than £75 million has been invested in flood risk management schemes around the Humber. These schemes reduce tidal risk to more than 30,000 households, businesses, industry and land. There are a number of other planned schemes which will be progressed as part of the Environment Agency’s 6 year flood risk management programme between now and 2021. Further information The approved Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy can be found on our website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/humber-flood-risk-management-strategy This will be replaced by the updated Strategy once it is completed.

Figure 83: Schemes included within the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy

289

LIT 10206

290