DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Management Plan 2019 1 Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Management Plan Written on behalf of the Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Partnership 2 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this document This document provides the baseline to take forward the work of the Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Partnership. It describes the Lower Trent & Erewash catchment and the issues that need to be tackled. Wherever available, a data and evidence approach has been used to support the areas and project identified for future development. The summary tables (Section 4.2) show the multiple benefits for each project against the Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Partnership goals. Annex 3 contains the specifications for each project including the current status of the project; the lead organisation and next steps required to make it happen. 1.2 The Catchment Based Approach Back in 2012 Defra launched the Catchment Based Approach (CaBA). The Catchment Based Approach encourages organisations to manage land and water in a balanced way, by identifying the pressures on the water environment, by working together to agree common objective and by implementing solutions. A key principle is encouraging organisations to work in partnership and to deliver a range of benefits through a single initiative. 1.3 River Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment The catchment of the Lower Trent and Erewash is a very large sub catchment covering an area of approximately 2045km2, extending from the River Dove confluence with the River Trent south west of the city of Derby and finishing at Alkborough Flats where the Trent flows into the Humber Estuary at Trent Falls. Within this area the River Trent is 174 km long with its main tributaries including the rivers Derwent, Soar, Erewash, Leen, Greet, Devon, Idle, Torne and Eau and the Dover Beck. Nottinghamshire is its principal county, with parts of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire incorporated. The catchment is a very long one touching a number of counties and to better service its needs the south west corner between its confluences with the Rivers Dove and Derwent is being managed by the Derwent Catchment Partnership. This plan will therefore cover the catchment immediately downstream of its confluence with the Derwent to the Humber Estuary. Nottingham is the principal urban area within its catchment with other major settlements being Ilkeston, Newark, Gainsborough and Scunthorpe. The catchment contains a variety of landscapes, predominantly the Trent and Belvoir Vales but also includes the Humberhead Levels, the Northern Lincolnshire Edge and Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire Wolds. The bedrock geology of Triassic and 3 Jurassic mudstones has given rise to fertile, clayey soils across much of the area, while extensive deposits of alluvium and sand and gravel have given rise to a wider variety of soils, especially in the flood plains. The dominant land use across the catchment is rural, mostly arable production with a small portion in pasture. Diffuse nutrient pollution (phosphate) from agricultural run-off is considered to be a major contributing factor to the overall WFD status of the catchment. Other key issues causing water quality problems come from overflow from sewage works, surface water run-off from quarry workings and the road network. There are also some communities at risk of flooding within the catchment. Before CaBA there were already many projects ongoing across the Lower Trent that delivered benefits for the water environment. However, few of them looked at the catchment as a whole. The Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Partnership has brought many well established organisations together to discuss their work and future aspirations at the catchment scale. The work reinforces the strength of some of the existing projects and allows the partners to look more widely at opportunities to work with partners to bring about benefits that may not be achievable by working alone. 4 Figure 1 Map of the Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment 5 2 The Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Partnership The Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Partnership has been developed in response to the Defra Catchment Based Approach policy using funding by Defra and the EA. A range of organisations have been meeting to look at the options across the Lower Trent & Erewash since the start of 2014. The Lower Trent & Erewash catchment partnership has a wide and active membership. The Catchment Based Approach has brought a catchment scale focus to the members recognising the wider benefits that can be achieved by a coordinated partnership. The organisations that attend the meetings are listed below: Ashfield District Council Canal and River Trust Broxtowe Borough Council Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Derbyshire County Council Environment Agency Forestry Commission Friends of Toton Fields Gedling Borough Council Groundwork Nottingham Keep Britain Tidy (via WatersideCare) Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Nottingham City Council Nottinghamshire County Council Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust National Farmers Union Natural England North Lincolnshire County Council Nottingham Trent University RSPB Rushcliffe Borough Council Severn Trent Water Southwell Flood Forum Trent Rivers Trust (catchment host) Trent Valley IDB U3A University of Lincoln 6 2.1 Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Vision The Lower Trent & Erewash catchment partnership has an agreed vision for the long term on the Lower Trent & Erewash. Vision for the Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Partnership "A Lower Trent & Erewash catchment that has a healthy, functioning water environment including rivers, lakes and groundwater”. 2.2 Lower Trent & Erewash Catchment Partnership Objectives Objective Long term objectives Biodiversity and Natural There is a rich and diverse collection of habitats and Processes species within the catchment rivers and their floodplains. Areas of high conservation value are in good condition and are connected by wildlife corridors. Fish can move freely throughout the catchment with ample spawning and nursery areas. Flood Risk Management Rain water is stored and managed to reduce the risk of flooding through the use of urban and rural sustainable drainage solutions wherever possible. Properties and livelihoods are not impacted by flood risk and are resilient to future climate change. Floodplains are managed to store flood water as well as other local benefits. Opportunities for Natural Flood Management (NFM) schemes are explored and implemented where possible. Community Involvement There is a high level of public understanding of the and Recreation importance of rivers and floodplains to provide places for people and wildlife. Communities are involved with a local river project. There is a range of recreation and accessible sites along the river and throughout the catchment. Water quality Water quality from point and diffuse sources is improved. There is a raised awareness of pollution risk from residential, commercial, rural and urban sources. Addressing issues in high Our priority areas benefit from focused attention to help priority areas within the them achieve relevant catchment objectives. catchment Partners supporting each other and working together in our priority areas to maximise achievements. 7 2.3 Our Priority Areas The Lower Trent & Erewash catchment is a very large and long catchment with major urban communities separated by long distances e.g. Nottingham near the south of the catchment is over 70 miles from Scunthorpe in the North. Rural communities are similarly spread and so lack a sense of shared ownership and engagement over the catchment as a whole. The use of priority areas or hubs better enables the engagement of partners as well as local communities to work together to improve the water quality. Four priority areas have been identified in the catchment: Trent Valley (Trent Gateway project area) Erewash and Leen Dover Beck and Greet Bottesford Beck and Eau From these areas 2 Hubs have been created that allow the partnership to work together to help achieve the catchments objectives. These Hubs are the Erewash and Leen Hub and the Rural Hub which includes the Trent Valley and Dover Beck and Greet priority areas. The overall Catchment Partnership is overseen by a steering group formed from Trent Gateway Project partners. The Trent Gateway project is a large landscape scale project across the catchment (Figure 3) which brings together heritage, access and recreation, education and environmental sectors to deliver coordinated benefits. The Trent Gateway project will restore the River Trent to a thriving green corridor, focussing on enabling fish passage to over 400km of river. Through working in partnership, the project will also deliver a range of recreational and economic benefits by linking the people to the social history of the area and the role the Trent has played in shaping the communities along its route More information on the project can be found at: https://www.trentriverstrust.org/lower-trent-and-erewash/trent-gateway/lower-trent- and-erewash-trent-gateway/ Partners currently have projects and/or potential projects in the Hubs and this provides a core of activity on which to build. Section 3 below provides further evidence of the issues in the Hubs that the partnership could work together to address. 8 Figure 2 Map of the Hubs 9 Figure 3 Map of the Trent Gateway project area 10 3 Data and evidence 3.1 Nationally consistent evidence base CaBA data package for Lower Trent & Erewash catchment: https://catchmentbasedapproach.org/learn/national-evidence-desktop-caba-gis-data- package/ The 'CaBA Data & GIS User Guide' explains which layers are available, what they mean and how they can be used. There are over 100 data layers available for this catchment which identify the spatial pattern of opportunities; issues, characteristics and the possible sources of the issues. This weight of evidence is being improved by collecting local datasets and working with local organisations in the catchment. This data coupled with 'Local Evidence' and 'Priority Places' below provide the weight of evidence required to deliver projects which will benefit the lives of people and wildlife living in this the catchment.
Recommended publications
  • U DDBA Papers of the Barnards Family 1401-1945 of South Cave

    U DDBA Papers of the Barnards Family 1401-1945 of South Cave

    Hull History Centre: Papers of the Barnards Family of South Cave U DDBA Papers of the Barnards Family 1401-1945 of South Cave Historical background: The papers relate to the branch of the family headed by Leuyns Boldero Barnard who began building up a landed estate centred on South Cave in the mid-eighteenth century. His inherited ancestry can be traced back to William and Elizabeth Barnard in the late sixteenth century. Their son, William Barnard, became mayor of Hull and died in 1614. Of his seven sons, two of them also served time as mayor of Hull, including the sixth son, Henry Barnard (d.1661), through whose direct descendants Leuyns Boldero Barnard was eventually destined to succeed. Henry Barnard, married Frances Spurrier and together had a son and a daughter. His daughter, Frances, married William Thompson MP of Humbleton and his son, Edward Barnard, who lived at North Dalton, was recorder of Hull and Beverley from the early 1660s until 1686 when he died. He and his wife Margaret, who was also from the Thompson family, had at least seven children, the eldest of whom, Edward Barnard (d.1714), had five children some of whom died without issue and some had only female heirs. The second son, William Barnard (d.1718) married Mary Perrot, the daughter of a York alderman, but had no children. The third son, Henry Barnard (will at U DDBA/14/3), married Eleanor Lowther, but he also died, in 1769 at the age of 94, without issue. From the death of Henry Barnard in 1769 the family inheritance moved laterally.
  • Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 - 2021

    Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 - 2021

    Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 - 2021 Final June 2016 Nottinghamshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Review Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Rev Date Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by 1 August 2013 Outline Local Flood Risk Hannah Andy Wallace, Gary Wood, Group Management Strategy for O’Callaghan, Flood Risk Manager Highways Consultation Flood Risk Manager Planning, Access Management and Officer (Project Commissioning Manager) (Project Executive) 2 December Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling 2014 Strategy – Draft for Client Water and Principal Associate Comment Flood Risk Consultant Consultant (URS) (URS) (URS) 3 June 2015 Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling Strategy – Second Draft for Water and Principal Associate Client Comment Flood Risk Consultant Consultant AECOM AECOM AECOM (formerly URS) (Formerly URS) (Formerly URS) 4 July 2015 Local Flood Risk Management Amy Ruocco, Sarah Kelly, Carl Pelling Strategy – Final Draft for Water and Principal Associate Consultation Flood Risk Consultant Consultant AECOM AECOM AECOM 5 October Local Flood Risk Management Derek Hair Andy Wallace Transport and 2015 Strategy – Final Draft for Highways Principal Project Flood Risk Consultation Committee Engineer Manager AECOM 6 December Local Flood Risk Management Derek Hair Clive Wood Transport and 2015 Strategy – Final Draft for Highways Principal Project Flood Risk Consultation Committee Engineer Manager 7 June 2016 Local Flood Risk Management Derek
  • Nottingham City Council

    Nottingham City Council

    Greater Nottingham and Ashfield Outline Water Cycle Study Final Report February 2010 Creating the environment for business Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Entec (© Entec UK Limited 2010) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Entec under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Entec. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third-Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third-party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Entec at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third-party who is able to access it by any means. Entec excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.
  • Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2011-2020

    Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2011-2020

    Published by the Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Partnership 2011 Biodiversity Lowland 2011 Derbyshire ‐ 2020 Action Plan Contents Click links to go the various sections of the LBAP Section Quick start Guide Introduction Generic Action Plan Area Action Plans and Targets Action Area 1: Magnesian Limestone Action Area 2: Rother and Doe Lea Valleys Action Area 3: Peak Fringe Action Area 4: Erewash Valley Action Area 5: Claylands Action Area 6: Derby Action Area 7: Trent and Dove Valleys Action Area 8: National Forest area Cumulative Targets UK Priority Habitats—Background Information Farmland Grassland Heathland Wetland Woodland List of Lowland Derbyshire LBAP Partners Appendix 1: Detailed Maps of All Eight Action Areas (with Priority Habitats) these are available as eight 4MB files on CD or from www.derbyshirebiodiversity.org.uk Cover photos, clockwise from top left: Bulfinch. Credit: Laura Whitehead White Admiral. Credit: Debbie Alston Green Lane, north‐east Derbyshire. Credit: Debbie Alston www.derbyshirebiodiversity.org.uk Quick Start Guide 2 Quick Start Guide This Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) covers the Lowland Derbyshire region for the period 2011 to 2020. It identifies the basic actions we must collectively take if we are to protect and enhance the key biodiversity of this region. The UK Government recognises its international obligations and the economic urgency to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. This LBAP is part of that delivery and local reporting mechanism. Only those habitats and species meeting the UKBAP definitions of ‘Priority Habitat’ or ‘Priority Species’ are included in the targets for the Lowland Derbyshire Action Plans. The history and rationale behind the Local Biodiversity Action Plan is given in the Introduction.
  • Acrobat Distiller, Job 2

    Acrobat Distiller, Job 2

    5. Amphibians and reptiles Common toad Bufo bufo Key Sites: Saltfleetby - Theddlethorpe NNR (TF 470 910). Summary Status: • Wildlife and Countryside Act: Schedule 5, Section 9 (5). • Habitats Directive: not listed. • Berne Convention: not listed. • Red Data Book: not listed. • Breeding Status in the Humber: Breeding. • Widespread and common or abundant. Description The common toad Bufo bufo is a widespread amphibian found throughout Britain although this species is absent from Ireland. They are generally brown, grey or dirty green and have the ability to lighten or darken their skin depending on environmental conditions. Their skin is covered in warts which secrete a toxic substance when the toad is seriously threatened. Like most toad species the common toad has short stubby legs. It therefore moves in a series of short hops rather than the large leaps taken by the common frog (Beebee & Griffiths 2000). The common toad tends to avoid grazed pasture, improved grassland, arable fields, heathland and moorlands in favour of rough grassland, scrub and open woodland. Large permanent water bodies with a good cover of emergent and submerged vegetation are preferred. Unlike other British amphibian species, they are able to inhabit ponds, which support fish, due to the unpalatability of common toad tadpoles (Beebee & Griffiths 2000). Common toads feed primarily on ground dwelling arthropods such as ants (family Formicidae), beetles (order Coleoptera), spiders (order Araneae) and earwigs (order Dermaptera), although slower moving items such as earthworms (Class Oligochaeta), and gastropods such as slugs and snails are also taken (Gittins 1987 in Beebee & Griffiths 2000). Distribution within the Humber As in many kinds of species survey, the observed distribution of records will reflect differences in recording effort as well as the real distribution of a species.
  • Proposed Old Meadows Conservation Area

    Proposed Old Meadows Conservation Area

    Proposed Old Meadows Conservation Area Consultation Character Appraisal and Management Plan CONTENTS CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL .................................................. 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3 2. Key characteristics ............................................................................................... 3 3. Location, Landscape Setting and Topography ..................................................... 3 4. Historic development ............................................................................................ 3 5. The Area Today .................................................................................................... 3 6. The Conservation Area Boundary ........................................................................ 3 7. Archeology............................................................................................................ 3 8. Plan Form and Layout .......................................................................................... 3 9. Landmarks, Focal Points and Views ..................................................................... 4 10 Public Realm and Boundary Treatments .............................................................. 4 11. Contribution made by Open Spaces. Trees and Hedges 12. Building Materials ................................................................................................. 4 13. Architectural Style and Detailing
  • River Basin Management Plan Humber River Basin District Annex C

    River Basin Management Plan Humber River Basin District Annex C

    River Basin Management Plan Humber River Basin District Annex C: Actions to deliver objectives Contents C.1 Introduction 2 C. 2 Actions we can all take 8 C.3 All sectors 10 C.4 Agriculture and rural land management 16 C.5 Angling and conservation 39 C.6 Central government 50 C.7 Environment Agency 60 C.8 Industry, manufacturing and other business 83 C.9 Local and regional government 83 C.10 Mining and quarrying 98 C.11 Navigation 103 C.12 Urban and transport 110 C.13 Water industry 116 C.1 Introduction This annex sets out tables of the actions (the programmes of measures) that are proposed for each sector. Actions are the on the ground activities that will implemented to manage the pressures on the water environment and achieve the objectives of this plan. Further information relating to these actions and how they have been developed is given in: • Annex B Objectives for waters in the Humber River Basin District This gives information on the current status and environmental objectives that have been set and when it is planned to achieve these • Annex D Protected area objectives (including programmes for Natura 2000) This gives details of the location of protected areas, the monitoring networks for these, the environmental objectives and additional information on programmes of work for Natura 2000 sites. • Annex E Actions appraisal This gives information about how we have set the water body objectives for this plan and how we have selected the actions • Annex F Mechanisms for action This sets out the mechanisms - that is, the policy, legal, financial and voluntary arrangements - that allow actions to be put in place The actions are set out in tables for each sector.
  • Formal Observations of Linby & Papplewick Parish Councils – Objection Application Ref: 2013/1406 Application by the Co-Ope

    Formal Observations of Linby & Papplewick Parish Councils – Objection Application Ref: 2013/1406 Application by the Co-Ope

    Formal Observations of Linby & Papplewick Parish Councils – Objection Application Ref: 2013/1406 Application by The Co-operative Group Outline Application for demolition of three properties on Papplewick Lane to provide access for a residential development, education provision, public open space and attenuation ponds with Access defined and all other matters reserved Impact on Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality 1. RLP Policy ENV1 (Development Criteria) states that all developments must incorporate best practice in the protection and management of water resources, whilst RLP Policy ENV40 (River Environment) states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an adverse effect on water quality. ACS Policy 1 (Climate Change) states that development proposals will be expected to deliver “high levels of sustainability” in order to mitigate against and adapt to climate change, including flood risk and sustainable drainage. Similar objectives are sought by the Framework. 2. The application is accompanied by a number of reports seeking to deal with issues of flooding and drainage, prepared in the main by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited. Analysis of various documents submitted in support of the application highlights a number of serious short comings associated with the proposed development, as highlighted below. 3. By way of background, a report on the Greater Nottingham Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (GNSFRA) prepared by GBC Planning Policy Manager and tabled at GBC Cabinet meeting on 4th September 2008 and subsequent Planning Committee on 9th Sept 2008 concluded: - “For Gedling Borough, the SFRA primarily consolidates and expands upon existing flooding information to provide a more complete picture of flood risk and its impact on planning.
  • GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report Nationalgrideso UNRESTRICTED GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report Tuesday 11 June 2019

    GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report Nationalgrideso UNRESTRICTED GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report Tuesday 11 June 2019

    GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report nationalgridESO UNRESTRICTED GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report Tuesday 11 June 2019 Today’s High Level Risk Status Forecast for the next 24h Time General Status Voltage PSM Demand System Inertia 07:00 - 14:00 System Margins Weather Duty 14:00 - 21:00 Generation Transmission Officer 21:00 - 07:00 Active Constraints Today’s Minimum De-Rated Margin 3891.13 (SP 36) System Warnings None Generation Variable Current BMU Largest Loss Risk Demand 560MW Balancing Costs Last 241 hours'6 ENCC11 BM16 spend212631Total:36 £729k414651566166717681869196 £80k £60k £40k £20k £0k -£20k -£40k Yesterday’s Market Summary Cash out price (Max) £80.00 /MWh (SP 20) Cash Out Price (Min) £23.01 /MWh (SP 15) Peak Demand Yesterday 28,745 MW NETS Status Report; 11 June 2019 2 of 4 nationalgridESO UNRESTRICTED Interconnectors Today Import Export Netherlands (BritNed) 1060 1060 Fully Available France (IFA) 1500 1500 Pole 1 unavailable, due to RTS at 12:00hrs Belgium (Nemo) 1013 1013 Fullly Available Ireland (EWIC) 500 530 Fullly Available Northern Ireland (MOYLE) 395 500 Partially available. Wind Power Forecast Key: Expected embedded generation (MWs) Embedded Generation Forecast 10-JUN-2019 11-JUN-2019 12-JUN-2019 05:00 08:00 12:00 17:00 21:00 00:00 05:00 08:00 12:00 17:00 21:00 00:00 05:00 08:00 12:00 17:00 21:00 Solar (MW) 1 1640 3830 1700 46 0 0 1039 3564 2060 29 0 0 725 2193 1717 38 Wind (MW) 284 381 689 1203 1281 1361 1783 2073 2250 2137 1798 1760 1712 1706 1773 1751 1600 STOR (MW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total (MW) 285 2021 4519 2903 1327 1361 1783 3112 5814 4197 1827 1760 1712 2431 3966 3468 1638 NETS Status Report; 11 June 2019 3 of 4 nationalgridESO UNRESTRICTED Weather Source Commentary 11/05/2019 Met Office Today: (Summary) SEPA Rain, heavy at times, and strong winds will continue across much of Natural Resources Wales England and Wales, although south and southeastern parts will be brighter with lighter winds but with heavy, thundery showers developing.
  • Part 1 Rea Ch Classifica Tion

    Part 1 Rea Ch Classifica Tion

    RIVER QUALITY SURVEY NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY NORTHUMBRIA & YORKSHIRE REGION GQA ASSESSMENT 1994 PART 1 REA CH CLASSIFICA TION FRESHWATER RIVERS AND CANALS VERSION 1: AUGUST 1995 GQA ASSESSMENT 1994 \ NORTHUMBRIA & YORKSHIRE REGION To allow the development of a National method of evaluating water quality, the rivers in all the NRA regions of England and Wales have been divided into reaches, which are numbered using a coding system based on the hydrological reference for each river basin. Each classified reach then has a chemistry sample point assigned to it and these sample points are regularly monitored for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Dissolved oxygen (DO) and Total Ammonia. The summary statistics calculated from the results of this sampling are sent to a National Centre where the GQA Grades are calculated. A National report is produced and each region can then produce more detailed reports on the quality of their own rivers. For Northumbria and Yorkshire Region, this Regional Report has been divided into two parts. PARTI: REACH CLASSIFICATION This report contains a listing of the river reaches within the region, with their start and finish grid reference, approximate length, and the 1990 and 1994 GQA class for each reach. The reference code of the chemistry sample point used to classify the reach is also included. A sample point may classify several reaches if there are no major discharges or tributaries dividing those reaches. The sample point used to classify a reach may change and the classification is therefore calculated using the summary statistics for each sample point that has been used over the past three years.
  • 1622-Humber Consult Doc.Indd

    1622-Humber Consult Doc.Indd

    The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy Consultation Document August 2005 planning for the rising tides Key issues Strategy objectives Key issues affecting the Sea level rise Impact of realigning defences Overall objectives Sea levels in the estuary are Maintaining or moving defences 1. To develop a coherent and • sustainable, taking into 2. To ensure that all proposals are: need for and scope of a expected to rise relative to the land in the middle or outer parts of the realistic plan for the estuary’s account future changes in the • compatible with natural estuary at an average rate of 6 mm per year estuary (seaward of the Humber flood defences that is: environment (human, built or strategy include: processes; over the next 50 years (and possibly Bridge) will have little effect on natural), in sea levels or in the • compatible with natural estuary at a higher rate subsequently). overall estuary processes or on the climate. • technically feasible; Condition and standard of processes; defences elsewhere, however doing defences Loss of inter-tidal habitat • economically viable; so further landward could affect • compatible with adjacent Although the existing defences are As sea levels rise the presence of water levels. developments, including • environmentally appropriate; and in reasonable condition and provide a system of defences around the preferred options for adjoining an adequate standard of protection, estuary will result in the loss of Creating flood storage • socially acceptable. lengths of frontage; and both the condition and the standard about 600 ha of inter-tidal habitat Creating flood storage landward will reduce with time through due to coastal squeeze.
  • DRAFT Greater Nottingham Blue-Green Infrastructure Strategy

    DRAFT Greater Nottingham Blue-Green Infrastructure Strategy

    DRAFT Greater Nottingham Blue-Green Infrastructure Strategy July 2021 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 8 3. Blue-Green Infrastructure Priorities and Principles 18 4. National and Local Planning Policies 23 5. Regional and Local Green Infrastructure Strategies 28 6. Existing Blue-Green Infrastructure Assets 38 7. Blue-Green Infrastructure Strategic Networks 62 8. Ecological Networks 71 9. Synergies between Ecological and the Blue-Green Infrastructure Network 89 Appendix A: BGI Corridor Summaries 92 Appendix B: Biodiversity Connectivity Maps 132 Appendix C: Biodiversity Opportunity Areas 136 Appendix D: Natural Environment Assets 140 Appendix D1: Sites of Special Scientific Interest 141 Appendix D2: Local Nature Reserves 142 Appendix D3: Local Wildlife Sites 145 Appendix D4: Non-Designated 159 1 Appendix E: Recreational Assets 169 Appendix E1: Children’s and Young People’s Play Space 170 Appendix E2: Outdoor Sports Pitches 178 Appendix E3: Parks and Gardens 192 Appendix E4: Allotments 199 Appendix F: Blue Infrastructure 203 Appendix F1: Watercourses 204 2 1. Introduction Objectives of the Strategy 1.1 The Greater Nottingham authorities have determined that a Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) Strategy is required to inform both the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan (Local Plan Part 1) and the development of policies and allocations within it. This strategic plan is being prepared by Broxtowe Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council, Nottingham City Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council. It will also inform the Erewash Local Plan which is being progressed separately. For the purposes of this BGI Strategy the area comprises the administrative areas of: Broxtowe Borough Council; Erewash Borough Council; Gedling Borough Council; Nottingham City Council; and Rushcliffe Borough Council.