29-31 Leat Street, Tiverton

Home , Leat

29-31 Leat Street, Tiverton OSNGR: 295061,112786 Area: 0.23ha Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 TBC 11% 67% 22% Exception Test Required? Potentially yes, depending on location of development. The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'. Under the NPPF, More Vulnerable development in Flood Zone 3a requires the application of the Exception Test.

Should residential development be located so that it is outside of Flood Zone 3 then the Exception test would not be required. However, this may have implications for site access.

Potential to pass the Exception Test (if required): Should development be located in Flood Zone 3 it will need to pass the Exception Test. To pass Part ‘b’ of the Exception Test, a FRA should demonstrate that: the development will be safe, will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere, and will reduce flood risk overall.

• Risks to development could be reduced by using sequential design to locate development in the west of the site, outside of Flood Zone 3. • The development could potentially be made safe through building design, and by meeting drainage requirements. In view of the flooding problems from the River Exe, detailed hydraulic modelling should be undertaken to determine the 1 in 100-year flood level (with and without climate change) as well as any other return periods requested by the Environment Agency. The results of this modelling will inform development design and confirm whether housing proposals can pass the Exception Test. • The main route to the site (Leat Street) is shown to be in Flood Zone 3a, restricting safe access and egress in a time of flood. There is no alternative safe access/egress route for the site. • To avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere, surface water management techniques should be adopted (see 'SUDS & the development site' below).

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Fluvial flood risk is from the overtopping of the River Exe. • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Permeable paving should use non-infiltrating systems due to Control high risk of groundwater flooding. Mapping suggests low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m.

Page 2 of 3 • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: The site lies within the low impact zone associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Middle Exe Flood Alert Area and the River Exe (Middle) Tiverton Flood Warning Area. Access & Egress: The main access and egress road for the site is affected by fluvial and surface water flooding Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the River Exe. Flood Risk Implications for Development: • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required if any development is located within Flood Zones 2 or 3. • Resilience measures will be required if buildings are situated in the flood risk area. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the River Exe should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • Safe access and egress would need to be demonstrated. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding. • Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at an early stage.

Page 3 of 3 Blundell's School, Tiverton OSNGR: 296843,113111 Area: 13.13ha Partial brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 TBC 62% 18% 20% Exception Test Required? Probably yes, depending on location and type of development. The proposed land use is mixed residential and commercial use. Where developments contain different elements of vulnerability the highest vulnerability category should be used, unless the development is considered in its component parts. The highest vulnerability for this site is 'More Vulnerable' (residential). Under the NPPF, More Vulnerable development in Flood Zone 3a requires the application of the Exception Test.

Should residential development be located so that it is outside of Flood Zone 3 then the Exception test would not be required. However, given the site is 62% in Flood Zone 3a, the proximity of the River Lowman and that 71% of the site has flooded in the past, there is a high possibility that this site lies within Flood Zone 3b (the Functional Floodplain).

Should this be the case, then Highly Vulnerable, Less Vulnerable and More Vulnerable development is not permitted in Flood Zone 3b, and this site, in its current form, should not be allocated. Potential for development: • In view of the flooding problems from the River Lowman, detailed hydraulic modelling should be undertaken to determine whether the site falls within Flood Zone 3b. Should modelling show the site to be in Flood Zone 3b, only Essential Infrastructure or Water Compatible uses would be allowed in this area. • A flood risk assessment will be required for any development within Flood Zone 2 or 3 (assuming the site is outside of Flood Zone 3b) and the Exception Test would need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. • 62% of the site is in Flood Zone 3 suggesting land raising is not a feasible mitigation option - compensatory floodplain storage would be required on a 'level for level', 'volume for volume' basis.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Fluvial flood risk is from the overtopping of the River Lowman • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Mapping suggests that permeable paving is unlikely to be Control suitable due to the slope of the site.

Mapping suggests low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m.

This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. A Detention liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

Page 2 of 3 All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences defending the site. Canal: The site lies within the medium and low impact zones associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Middle Exe Flood Alert Area and the River Lowman at Tiverton Flood Warning Area. Access & Egress: The main route to and from the site is not significantly affected by flooding. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the River Lowman. Flood Risk Implications for Development: Assuming further assessment shows the site to be outside of Flood Zone 3b: • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required. • Resilience measures will be required if buildings are situated in the flood risk area. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the River Lowman should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding. • Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at an early stage.

Page 3 of 3 Eastern Urban Extension, Tiverton OSNGR: 298308,112953 Area: 108.07ha Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 TBC 3% 0% 97% Exception Test Required? Potentially yes, depending on location of development. The proposed land use for this site is mixed use. Where developments contain different elements of vulnerability the highest vulnerability category should be used, unless the development is considered in its component parts. The highest vulnerability for this site is 'More Vulnerable' (residential).

Should residential development be located so that it is outside of Flood Zone 3 then the Exception test would not be required.

Potential to pass the Exception Test (if required): • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development within the site greater than 1ha or if it is located within Flood Zones 2 or 3. • At the planning application stage hydrological and hydraulic assessment of the watercourse that runs through the south east corner of the site should be undertaken to verify flood extent. • The results of the modelling will inform development zoning in the site, allowing location of residential development in areas outside of flood risk. If residential development is unable to be located outside of flood risk areas (1 in 100-year flood) the Exception Test would be required.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Fluvial flood risk is from the overtopping of the unnamed watercourse that flows through the south east of the site. • Surface water presents a risk to the site. Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Mapping suggests that permeable paving is unlikely to be Control suitable due to the slope of the site.

Mapping suggests high permeability at this site, site investigations should be carried out to assess potential for Infiltration drainage by infiltration due to the risk of ground water flooding.

This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. A Detention liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: A large proportion of the site lies within the very high, high, medium and low impact zones associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site.

Page 2 of 3 Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site. At the planning application stage, hydraulic modelling of the unnamed watercourse will allow for safe access and egress routes for the development to be identified. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the unnamed watercourse. Flood Risk Implications for Development: • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required if any development is located within Flood Zones 2 or 3, or is greater than 1ha in Flood Zone 1.. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the unnamed watercourse should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourses to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • Development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Locating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding.

Page 3 of 3 Exeter Hill, Tiverton OSNGR: 296315,112128 Area: 6.26ha Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'.

Existing information shows this site to be 100% in Flood Zone 1 and, therefore, the Exception Test is not required. Planning application stage: • A site specific flood risk assessment is required for development proposals on sites comprising one hectare or above in Flood Zone 1, in which the vulnerability to flooding from other sources should be considered. • The potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off should be considered.

Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: The site lies within the high and medium impact zones associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities.

Page 2 of 3 Flood Risk Implications for Development: • A site specific flood risk assessment is required for development proposals on sites comprising one hectare or above in Flood Zone 1 • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff

Page 3 of 3 Farleigh Meadows, Tiverton OSNGR: 294648,113581 Area: 11.27ha Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 TBC 8% 8% 84% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'. Under the NPPF, More Vulnerable development in Flood Zone 3a requires the application of the Exception Test.

This site has planning permission. As this site is greater than 1ha it would have required a site specific flood risk assessment at the planning application stage. Should plans for the site show residential development located in Flood Zone 3 then the Exception Test would have been required as part of that site specific flood risk assessment. Planning application stage: If site plans proposed residential development to be located in Flood Zone 3 it would have needed to pass the Exception Test. To pass Part ‘b’ of the Exception Test, the site specific FRA that accompanied the planning application would have demonstrated that: the development would be safe, would avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere, and would reduce flood risk overall.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Fluvial flood risk is from the overtopping of the Mill Leat and/or River Exe • Surface water presents a risk to the site. Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Mapping suggests that permeable paving is unlikely to be Control suitable due to the slope of the site. Mapping suggests high permeability at this site, site Infiltration investigations should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has Filtration contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the Conveyance slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Middle Exe Flood Alert Area and the River Exe (Middle) from Exebridge to Tiverton Flood Warning Area. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no safe access/egress issues for the site. Whilst the A361 eastwards may be affected by fluvial flooding, the A361 westwards is unaffected. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the Mill Leat.

Page 2 of 3 Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Resilience measures will be required if buildings are situated in the flood risk area. • The peak flows on the Mill Leat and River Exe should have been considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should have included allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding.

Page 3 of 3 Hay Park, Tiverton OSNGR: 297176,112090 Area: 0.32ha Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'.

Existing information shows this site to be 100% in Flood Zone 1. However, there is an unnamed watercourse flowing through the site, for which flood zone information is not available. Further information regarding the level of risk from this watercourse would be required to know whether or not the Exception Test is required and if it could be passed. Planning application stage: • Hydrological and hydraulic assessment of the unnamed watercourse that flows through the centre of the site should be undertaken to verify flood extent. Blockage analysis of the culvert at the northern boundary of the site should also be included. • The results of the modelling will inform development zoning in the site, allowing location of residential development in areas outside of flood risk. If residential development is unable to be located outside of flood risk areas (1 in 100-year flood) the Exception Test would be required. • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development located within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • There is potential fluvial flood risk from the overtopping of the unnamed watercourse flowing through the centre of the site. • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Mapping suggests that permeable paving is unlikely to be Control suitable due to the slope of the site. Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area Infiltration however; the ground water table at this location is likely to be high making this series of techniques unsuitable. Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: The site lies within the high impact zone associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site. At the planning application stage, hydraulic modelling of the unnamed watercourse will allow for safe access and egress routes for the development to be identified. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the unnamed watercourse.

Page 2 of 3 Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Flood zones have not been produced for the unnamed watercourse running through the site. The flood risk from this waterbody should be considered during the planning application stage. Should modelling show the site to be in Flood Zone 2 or 3 then a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the unnamed watercourse should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding.

Page 3 of 3 Howden Court, Tiverton OSNGR: 294595,111635 Area: 0.53ha Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'.

Page 1 of 2 Sources of Flood Risk: • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Mapping suggests that permeable paving is unlikely to be Control suitable due to the slope of the site. Mapping suggests high permeability at this site, site Infiltration investigations should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the Conveyance slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • The main access road to the site is not affected by surface flooding. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff

Page 2 of 2 Land at Hartnoll Farm, Tiverton OSNGR: 299253,112572 Area: 94.8ha Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'.

Existing information shows this site to be 100% in Flood Zone 1. However, there is an unnamed watercourse flowing through the site, for which flood zone information is not available. Further information regarding the level of risk from this watercourse would be required to know whether or not the Exception Test is required and if it could be passed. Planning application stage: • Hydrological and hydraulic assessment of the unnamed watercourses and drains that run through the site should be undertaken to verify flood extent. • The results of the modelling will inform development zoning in the site, allowing location of residential development in areas outside of flood risk. If residential development is unable to be located outside of flood risk areas (1 in 100-year flood) the Exception Test would be required. • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development greater than 1ha or if it is located within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Fluvial flood risk is from the overtopping of a series of unnamed watercourses throughout the site. • Surface water presents a risk to the site. Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Permeable paving should use non-infiltrating systems due to Control high risk of groundwater flooding. Mapping suggests soils are fairly permeable in this area. Infiltration However; the ground water table at this location is likely to be high making this series of techniques unsuitable. Mapping suggests that the site slopes are suitable for all forms Detention of detention. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: The site lies within the very high, high, medium and low impact zones associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site. At the planning application stage, hydraulic modelling of the unnamed watercourses and drains will allow for safe access and egress routes for the development to be identified.

Page 2 of 3 Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the unnamed watercourse.

Flood Risk Implications for Development: • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required if any development is located within Flood Zones 2 or 3, or for any sites greater than 1ha in Flood Zone 1. • Flood zones have not been produced for the unnamed watercourses and drains running through the site. The flood risk from these waterbodies should be considered during the planning application stage. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the unnamed watercourses and drains should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourses to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • Development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Locating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding.

Page 3 of 3 Land at the Foundry, Tiverton OSNGR: 296043,112816 Area: 1.79ha Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 TBC 100% 0% 0% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is commercial which has a flood risk vulnerability class of Less Vulnerable'. Under the NPPF, Less Vulnerable development in Flood Zone 3a does not require the application of the Exception Test. However, given the site is 100% in Flood Zone 3a, the proximity of the River Lowman and that 100% of the site has flooded in the past, there is a high possibility that this site lies within Flood Zone 3b (the Functional Floodplain).

Should this be the case, then 'less vulnerable' development is not permitted in Flood Zone 3b, and this site should not be allocated. Potential for development: • In view of the flooding problems from the River Lowman, detailed hydraulic modelling should be undertaken to determine whether the site falls within Flood Zone 3b. Should modelling show the site is outside of Flood Zone 3b, then the Exception Test will not be required; however, a site-specific flood risk assessment is required for any development within Flood Zone 2 or 3a. • All routes to the site are shown to be in Flood Zone 3a, restricting safe access and egress in a time of flood. There is no alternative safe access/egress route for the site. • 100% of the site is in Flood Zone 3 suggesting land raising is not a feasible mitigation option - compensatory floodplain storage would be required on a 'level for level', 'volume for volume' basis.

This site should only be allocated for development if further assessment shows development can be located outside of Flood Zone 3b and if there are no reasonably available sites in lower flood risk areas. If the site is shown to pass the Sequential Test, it is recommended that consideration is given to whether the site can be made safe for it's lifetime, given the site is 100% in Flood Zone 3, and whether development will potentially increase flood risk elsewhere.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Fluvial flood risk is from the overtopping of the River Lowman • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Permeable paving should use non-infiltrating systems due to Control high risk of groundwater flooding.

This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. A Detention liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

Page 2 of 3 All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences defending the site. Canal: The site lies within the Medium and Low impact zones associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Middle Exe Flood Alert Area and the River Lowman at Tiverton Flood Warning Area. Access & Egress: All routes to and from the site are at risk of flooding. There are no alternative safe access and egress routes. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the River Lowman. Flood Risk Implications for Development: Assuming further assessment shows the site to be outside of Flood Zone 3b: • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required. • Resilience measures will be required if buildings are situated in the flood risk area. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the River Lowman should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • Safe access and egress would need to be demonstrated. • Compensatory floodplain storage would be required on a 'level for level', 'volume for volume' basis. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding. • Consultation with the Local Authority and the Environment Agency should be undertaken at an early stage.

Page 3 of 3 Land at Wynnards Mead, Tiverton OSNGR: 294432,112645 Area: 6.53ha Predominantly Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 TBC 3% 0% 97% Exception Test Required? Potentially yes, depending on location of development. The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'. Under the NPPF, More Vulnerable development in Flood Zone 3a requires the application of the Exception Test.

Should residential development be located so that it is outside of Flood Zone 3 then the Exception test would not be required.

• The majority of the site is within Flood Zone 1. Risks to development could be reduced by using sequential design to locate development in centre and north of the site, outside of Flood Zone 3. • The development could potentially be made safe through building design, and by meeting drainage requirements. In view of the possible flooding from the Cottey Brook, detailed hydraulic modelling should be undertaken to determine the 1 in 100-year flood level (with and without climate change) as well as any other return periods requested by the Environment Agency. The results of this modelling will inform development design and confirm whether housing proposals can pass the Exception Test. • To avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere, surface water management techniques should be adopted (see 'SUDS & the development site' below).

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Fluvial flood risk is from the overtopping of the Cottey Brook. • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Mapping suggests that permeable paving is unlikely to be Control suitable due to the slope of the site. Mapping suggests high permeability at this site, site Infiltration investigations should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the Conveyance slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site.

Page 2 of 3 Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: The main access road to the site is not at risk from fluvial or surface water flooding. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the Cottey Brook. Flood Risk Implications for Development: • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required if any development is located within Flood Zones 2 or 3, or for any development greater than 1ha in Flood Zone 1. • Resilience measures will be required if buildings are situated in the flood risk area. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the Cottey Brook should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding.

Page 3 of 3 Moorhayes, Tiverton OSNGR: 296093,114097 Area: 0.28ha Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? Potentially; the proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'.

Existing information shows this site to be 100% in Flood Zone 1. However, the Town Leat flows through the site, for which flood zone information is not available. Further information regarding the level of risk from this watercourse would be required to know whether or not the Exception Test is required and if it could be passed. Planning application stage: • Hdrological and hydraulic assessment of theTown Leat that flows along the eastern boundary of the site should be undertaken to verify flood extent. • The results of the modelling will inform development zoning in the site, allowing location of residential development in areas outside of flood risk. If residential development is unable to be located outside of flood risk areas (1 in 100-year flood) the Exception Test would be required. • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development located within Flood Zones 2 or 3

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • There is the possibility of fluvial flood risk from overtopping of the Town Leat. • Surface water presents a risk to the site. Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Permeable paving should use non-infiltrating systems due to Control high risk of groundwater flooding. Mapping suggests low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m.

This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. A Detention liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site. At the planning application stage, hydraulic modelling of the Town Leat will allow for safe access and egress routes for the development to be identified. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the Town Leat.

Page 2 of 3 Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Flood zones have not been produced for the Town Leat running along the eastern boundary of the site. The flood risk from this waterbody should be considered during the planning application stage. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the Town Leat should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the Town Leat to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding.

Page 3 of 3 Palmerston Park, Tiverton OSNGR: 294777,111865 Area: 0.78ha Greenfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'.

Existing information shows this site to be 100% in Flood Zone 1 and, therefore, the Exception Test would not have been required. Planning application stage: • A site specific flood risk assessment is not required as the site is less than one hectare and is in Flood Zone 1. • The potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off should be considered.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Mapping suggests that permeable paving is unlikely to be Control suitable due to the slope of the site. Mapping suggests high permeability at this site, site Infiltration investigations should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% and the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has Filtration contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the Conveyance slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: A small section of the north west corner of the site lies within the low impact zone associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the Cottey Brook which could result in a larger flood extent in the future that may reach the site.

Page 2 of 3 Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving Cottey Brook to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • Existing information suggests the main access road to the site is not significantly affected flooding. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff

Page 3 of 3 Phoenix Lane, Tiverton OSNGR: 295530,112445 Area (amended): 1.41ha Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is mixed residential and commercial use. Where developments contain different elements of vulnerability the highest vulnerability category should be used, unless the development is considered in its component parts. The highest vulnerability for this site is 'More Vulnerable' (residential).

Existing information shows this site to be 100% in Flood Zone 1 and, therefore, the Exception Test is not required. The site boundary has been amended from what was originally proposed; this amendment has had no impact upon the level of flood risk at the site.

Planning application stage: • A site specific flood risk assessment is required for development proposals on sites comprising one hectare or above in Flood Zone 1, in which the vulnerability to flooding from other sources should be considered. • The potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off should be considered.

This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. A Detention liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: The site lies within the high and medium impact zones associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site.

Page 2 of 3 Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff

Page 3 of 3 Roundhill, Tiverton OSNGR: 294620,112286 Area: 0.42ha Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The exception test is not required for this site. Planning application stage: • A site specific flood risk assessment would not be required for this site as it is less than 1ha and located in Flood Zone 1. • The potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off should be considered.

Page 1 of 2 Sources of Flood Risk: • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Mapping suggests that permeable paving is unlikely to be Control suitable due to the slope of the site. Mapping suggests high permeability at this site, site Infiltration investigations should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development. This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. If the site has contaminated land issues; a liner will be required. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the Conveyance slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check dams to slow flows. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: The main access road to the site is not at risk from fluvial or surface water flooding. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce risk of flooding at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff

Page 2 of 2 The Avenue, Tiverton OSNGR: 296189,112419 Area: 0.34ha Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'.

This site is100% in Flood Zone 1 and, therefore, the Exception Test is not required. Planning application stage: • A site specific flood risk assessment would not be required for this site as it is less than 1ha and located in Flood Zone 1. • The potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off should be considered.

Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: The site lies within the very high impact zone associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no significant access or egress issues for the site. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities.

Page 2 of 3 Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • The main access road to the site is not significantly affected by surface or fluvial flood risk. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding.

Page 3 of 3 Tidcombe Hall, Tiverton OSNGR: 297510,112037 Area: 8.51ha Partial Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'.

Existing information shows this site to be 100% in Flood Zone 1. However, there is an unnamed watercourse flowing through the site, for which flood zone information is not available. Further information regarding the level of risk from this watercourse would be required to know whether or not the Exception Test is required and if it could be passed. Planning application stage: • Hydrological and hydraulic assessment of the unnamed watercourse that runs through the site should be undertaken to verify flood extent. • The results of the modelling will inform development zoning in the site, allowing location of residential development in areas outside of flood risk. If residential development is unable to be located outside of flood risk areas (1 in 100-year flood) the Exception Test would be required. • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required for any development greater than 1ha or if it is located within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Potentially, fluvial flood risk may be possible from the overtopping of the unnamed watercourse as it flows through the centre of the site. • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Permeable paving should use non-infiltrating systems due to Control high risk of groundwater flooding. Mapping suggests low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m. Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. Conveyance All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: The site lies within the very high, high, medium and low impact zones associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site. At the planning application stage, hydraulic modelling of the unnamed watercourse will allow for safe access and egress routes for the development to be identified. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the unnamed watercourse.

Page 2 of 3 Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Flood zones have not been produced for the unnamed watercourse running through the site. The flood risk from this waterbody should be considered during the planning application stage. • At the planning application stage, a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required if any development is located within Flood Zones 2 or 3, or for any sites greater than 1ha in Flood Zone 1. • Flood risk based on overtopping or breach of the Grand Western Canal should be considered during the planning application stage. • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • The peak flows on the unnamed watercourse should be considered when considering drainage. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • Development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Onsite attenuation schemes would need to be tested against the hydrograph of the receiving watercourse to ensure flows are not exacerbated downstream within the catchment. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff o Relocating development zones with lower flood risk o Creating space for flooding.

Page 3 of 3 Town Hall/St Andrew Street Tiverton OSNGR: 295361,112447 Area: 0.52ha Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 TBC 6% 33% 61% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is residential which has a flood risk vulnerability class of 'More Vulnerable'. Under the NPPF, More Vulnerable development in Flood Zone 3a requires the application of the Exception Test.

This site has planning permission granted. It would have required a site specific flood risk assessment at the planning application stage if development were to be located in Flood Zones 2 or 3. Should plans for the site show residential development located in Flood Zone 3 then the Exception Test would have been required as part of that site specific flood risk assessment. Planning application stage: If site plans proposed residential development to be located in Flood Zone 3 it would have needed to pass the Exception Test. To pass Part ‘b’ of the Exception Test, the site specific FRA that accompanied the planning application would have demonstrated that: the development would be safe, would avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere, and would reduce flood risk overall.

Page 1 of 3 Sources of Flood Risk: • Fluvial flood risk is from the overtopping of the River Exe to the west of the site. • Further development and creation of impermeable surfaces may result in an increase of surface water flood risk. SuDS & the development site: SuDS Type Suitability Comments Most source control techniques are likely to be suitable. Source Permeable paving should use non-infiltrating systems due to Control high risk of groundwater flooding. Mapping suggests low permeability in this area possibly making the infiltration techniques unsuitable. Further site investigation Infiltration should be carried out to assess potential for drainage by infiltration. If infiltration is suitable it should be avoided in areas where the depth to the water table is <1m.

Mapping suggests that the site will be too steep to allow ‘above Detention ground’ detention features to be used at this development This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Residential developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: A flood wall is located along the western site boundary. Canal: The site lies within the medium impact zone associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: The site is covered by the Middle Exe Flood Alert Area and the River Exe (Middle) Tiverton Flood Warning Area. Access & Egress: The main access road to the site is not significantly affected by surface water or fluvial flood risk. Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. • Increased water levels in the River Exe.

Page 3 of 3 William Street Tiverton OSNGR: 295646,112702 Area: 0.89ha Brownfield Flood Zone Coverage: FZ3b FZ3a FZ2 FZ1 0% 0% 0% 100% Exception Test Required? The proposed land use for this site is mixed residential and commercial use. Where developments contain different elements of vulnerability the highest vulnerability category should be used, unless the development is considered in its component parts. The highest vulnerability for this site is 'More Vulnerable' (residential).

Existing information shows this site to be 100% in Flood Zone 1 and, therefore, the Exception Test is not required. Planning application stage: • A site specific flood risk assessment would not be required for this site as it is less than 1ha and located in Flood Zone 1. • The potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off should be considered.

This option may be feasible provided site slopes are < 5%. A Detention liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

This feature is probably suitable provided site slopes are <5% Filtration and the depth to the water table is >1m. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater.

All forms of conveyance are likely to be suitable. Where the slopes are >5% features should follow contours or utilise check Conveyance dams to slow flows. A liner maybe required to prevent the egress of groundwater. • Developments should provide at least two independent SuDS features in series to provide a suitable level of water quality treatment. • The site is not located in an area designated as a landfill site. • The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. Flood Defences: There are no flood defences at this site. Canal: The site lies within the Medium impact zone associated with bank failure of the Grand Western Canal. Flood Warning: There are currently no flood warning areas covering this site. Access & Egress: Existing information suggests there are no access or egress issues for the site.

Page 2 of 3 Climate Change: • Increased storm intensities. Flood Risk Implications for Development: • Green infrastructure should be considered within the mitigation measures for surface water runoff from potential development. • Assessment for runoff should include allowance for climate change effects. • New or re-development should adopt exemplar source control SuDS techniques to reduce the risk of frequent low impact flooding due to post-development runoff. • Existing information suggests the main access road to the site is not significantly affected flooding. • New development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the site, for example by: o Reducing volume and rate of runoff

Page 3 of 3