DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

REPORT TO CABINET 28th June 2006

FLOOD DEFENCE STATEMENT & DRAINAGE ISSUES

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform Members of changes that have occurred to a variety of drainage functions and to seek approval for the Flood Defence Statement and for certain powers to be delegated to officers. This report briefly describes these issues.

2.0 INTRODUCTION - THE ROLE OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES

2.1 Thirty years ago, local authorities were responsible for most drainage matters. Arrangements are now very different as a result of national legislation. The Environment Agency (EA) is now the major Land Drainage Authority, leaving a residual role for the local authorities. Water are now responsible, as the Sewerage Authority, for the public sewerage system and for water supply (other than for the south-east corner of the City, which has Severn-Trent as the water supplier). Regrettably this fragmentation has created a situation where the public are often unclear about the responsibilities and liabilities.

2.2 The Environment Agency is the country’s largest non-departmental public body. It is governed locally by the Yorkshire Regional Flood Defence Committee (YRDFC), which includes a representative Member from City Council. The YRFDC has a 2006/07 planned expenditure of around £40m, although over both the last and forthcoming decades, as a result of priority needs elsewhere in the region, less than 1% of their expenditure on flood defence schemes was/will be within Sheffield.

2.3 The EA are the Land Drainage Authority for Main Rivers; the full list of Main Rivers is given in Appendix 2. The EA maintain a flood risk map for these rivers, which is available for public inspection on their web site. In addition they operate a flood warning system for the most vulnerable properties; in Sheffield this principally applies to properties around the Sheaf Gardens area south of Granville Square.

2.4 Within the The City CouncilTransport & Highways Division of Development Services, has responsibility for the Council's roles as the Land Drainage Authority and the Highway Authority. Street Force provides technical and management roles for maintenance and improvement works on highway and other drainage works. The Environmental Services Unit (ERS, D.E.L.) has separate powers with regard to matters of private drainage and nuisances.

2.5 The Council maintains records showing the known watercourse culverts and highways drains, but it does not maintain records of private drainage around property.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 Flooding can occur from many differing sources, the main national concern being the major fluvial flooding from rivers, which overtop their banks after periods of extreme rainfall. There have been several high profile floods in over recent years, such as the 2004 Carlisle flood, which is estimated to have caused £450million worth of damage. 3.2 Sheffield is fortunate in that the City does not tend to suffer from widespread fluvial flooding due to the topography and also, in part, due to the attenuation given to storm flows by the impounding reservoirs in the Upper Don valleys.

3.3 The EA web site shows the areas at risk of fluvial flooding from main rivers and this includes about 5,000 properties in Sheffield at risk from a 1 in 100 year event. British Land (Meadowhall Centre) has recently invested heavily in flood defence as a necessity for insurance purposes and their consultants are currently looking closely at the flood risk along the Lower Don Valley in order to inform a flood risk strategy for possible future development.

3.4 Whilst flooding from the larger main rivers obviously carries the most widespread threat, Sheffield suffers regular flooding problems at many locations due to lack of capacity and blockages in many of the smaller watercourses, particularly with regard to the culverted lengths through urban development. Inevitably culverts, many laid over 100 years ago, are inadequate to take the peak flows generated and debris can create blockages, especially at culvert entrances. There are several other sources of flooding, both foul and surface water related, which are regularly reported around the City. These include inadequate sized or blocked drains and sewers, surface water run-off, ground water springs, water supply leaks and highway gully problems.

3.5 The Director of Street Force made detailed reports on the recent improvements in gully cleaning to the Council’s Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny Board during 2005.

4.0 FLOOD DEFENCE STATEMENT

4.1 In accordance with the requirements of the High Level Targets (HLTs) set by Department for the Environment, Food & Rural affairs (Defra), the City Council is required to adopt a Flood Defence Statement. Officers have produced a written statement of flood defence policy, which is to a standard format for local authorities. It largely reiterates the existing policies of the Council. This statement has recently been updated and is reproduced in full in Appendix 1. The key features within this statement are: (i) the provision of an adequate and environmentally sound approach to flood defence matters, (ii) playing a positive role in the management of flood risk, including a strategic flood risk assessment, (iii) maintaining suitable liaison with the Environment Agency, and (iv) discouraging inappropriate development.

4.2 The statement forms an over-arching policy, which ties in with the Council’s detailed policies and procedures that are described briefly in the next section. The statement has to be sent to both Defra and to the Environment Agency and made available for public reading; it is intended to put the statement on the Council’s website.

5.0 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

5.1 Planning Policies concerning the drainage element of the development control process have evolved over time and there is now a much greater emphasis on flood risk in planning decisions. The Council has a range of policies for the protection of water features, including the promotion of green corridors along watercourses and the presumption against new culverting of streams. These policies, listed in Appendix 4, are part of the current 1998 Urban Development Plan (UDP) and are being reviewed as part of the proposed Sheffield Development Framework (SDF), which will replace the UDP. 5.2 Climate change and increasing urban densities are creating a significant rise in the number of major flooding events nationally. The Government is therefore requiring a more precautionary approach to flood risk management. The EA now consider the implications of a 1 in 100 year flood event. Planning Policy Guide 25 (PPG25) gives the current national advice on the drainage requirements for planning approvals, although this is due to be superseded later this year by Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25), which will bring in stricter controls. The Environment Agency will become a statutory consultee for many planning applications where there is a flood risk, although in Sheffield the planning officers already undertake such consultations. One of the major changes being introduced is likely to be when the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant approval against the wishes of the EA; it will then be necessary to refer applications to the Secretary of State prior to determination. In areas of potential flood, developers are already required to provide a flood risk assessment (FRA) with their planning application. In line with the requirements of the HLTs and PPS25, the Council have commissioned consultants to undertake a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

5.3 Planning policies now require more control on the discharge of surface water from sites. This is necessary in order to minimise the adverse effects that high discharge rates can have on the receiving watercourses or sewers. Various conditional approvals are utilised depending on whether the site is “greenfield” or “brownfield”. The use of sustainable urban drainage techniques (SUDs) and rainwater harvesting are all promoted, where feasible.

6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Whilst there are no financial implications arising from the contents of this report, there are 2 financial issues worthy of note.

6.2 The majority of funding to the EA used to be via local authority levies, but the system changed in 2004 such that the main funding is now direct grant from Central Government, supplemented by a smaller local levy. Government reimburses local authorities for the levy funding via the Formula Spending Share (FSS), but this is 1 year in arrears. Therefore, any increase in the levy has to be met as a subsidy by the Councils. Provision has been made in the Corporate Budget for Sheffield’s levy contribution, which in 2006/07 rises from £33,334 to £48,739, giving an increased payment of £15,405. The total YRFDC local levy rises from £341,961 in 05/06 to £500,000 in 2006/07.

6.3 The length of Main Rivers has been recently increased by the transfer of Critical Ordinary Watercourses, to give the EA more control. In Sheffield the length increased in 2004 from 67km to 94km, as detailed in Appendix 2. Defra has decided to transfer to the EA an extra £5m and it is understood that this will be reflected as a reduction in the FSS of the relevant local authorities. For Sheffield, this reduction is estimated at £80,000.

7.0 PUBLICATIONS & CONSULTATIONS

7.1 A list of available documents for reference is given in Appendix 5. There have been several national consultations on drainage matters over recent years to which Council staff have provided input. A list of the current Drainage information sheets is given in Appendix 3. 8.0 CLIMATE CHANGE

8.1 It is generally accepted that climate change will lead to an increase in the percentage of annual rainfall that occurs as heavy storms in winter. This is predicted to increase peak surface water run-off flows and create more widespread flooding, hence the need for the more stringent development control to reduce run-off and for higher EA expenditure on flood defence.

9.0 DELEGATIONS

9.1 Powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991, principally S.14-20, 25, 26, 59 & 66, and under the Public Health Act 1936, S.262-265 have previously been delegated to the Chief Engineer (ex- Design & Building Services) and now require transferring to the Head of Transport & Highways.

9.2 Under the Land Drainage Act 1991 the Council has powers, principally Sections 14-20, 25, 26, & 66, with regard to flood prevention and maintaining flows in ordinary watercourses. Powers include new flood defence works, maintenance and serving notices on riparian owners for the removal of blockages. These powers are permissive rather than a statutory duty. There are also powers to carry out improvement works, flood defence works and/or maintenance and where notice should be given to landowners. In some circumstances applications may be made to Defra for grants. Under the Public Health Act 1936, Sections 262-265, the Council is required to approve applications for culverting or other changes which would affect the flow of water in streams and rivers. Additionally a developer can be required to undertake certain works to watercourses.

9.3 There are a number of other related powers already delegated to officers such as drainage matters under the Highways Act 1980, emergency powers under the Local Government Act 1972, the Section 106 agreements under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, the Building Act 1984 and matters under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The powers under the Reservoir Act 1975 are no longer applicable with the transfer of duties to the EA.

10.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

10.1 This report deals with matters for information and there are no equal opportunities implications arising directly from the content of this report.

11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS; PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS

11.1 There are matters of environmental and property noted within the report, but no implications arising directly from the content of this report.

12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Members are recommended to:

12.1 Note the contents of the report and the accompanying document.

12.2 Approve the Flood Defence Statement set out in Appendix 1 of the accompanying document and delegate to the Head of Transport & Highways the responsibility to update any further amendments as required. 12.3 Delegate the powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 (Section 14 - 20, 25, 26, 59 & 66) and under the Public Health Act 1936 (Sections 262-265) to the Head of Transport & Highways.

David Curtis Director of Development Services Appendix 1 - SCC Flood Defence Statement

1. Introduction

Purpose

1.1. This policy statement has been prepared by Sheffield City Council to provide a public statement of the Council’s approach to management of flood defence in its area. The Council’s area and that of adjacent local authorities is remote from the coast, therefore coastal defence is omitted from this statement.

Background

1.2. DEFRA has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England. However, delivery is the responsibility of a number of flood and coastal defence “operating authorities” i.e. the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. There are no internal drainage boards operating within the Council’s area and therefore further references are omitted.

1.3. The Government has published a policy aim and three objectives for flood and coastal defence1. To ensure a more certain delivery of the aim and objectives by the individual operating authorities, the Government has published a series of high level targets2. The first target requires each operating authority to publish a policy statement setting out their plans for delivering the Government’s policy aims and objectives in their area. This will include an assessment of the risk of flooding in their area, and the plans they have to reduce that risk.

1.4. This policy fulfils that requirement. Copies are available from the Council’s offices at Transport & Highways, Land Drainage Group, 2–10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB. It is also intended to publish this statement on the Council’s web site. We are also providing a copy to DEFRA and the Environment Agency.

2 How the Council will deliver the government’s policy aim and objectives

2.1 Sheffield City Council supports the Government’s policy aim and the key objectives for flood defence. Our policy and approach will be consistent with them, as follows:

Government’s policy aim: To reduce the risk to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures.

Section 3 below sets out our assessment of the flooding risk in the Council’s area and our plans for reducing or managing that risk.

Key Objective (a): To encourage the provision of adequate and cost effective flood warning systems.

Provision of flood warning systems is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. However, Sheffield City Council recognises its related and important role in emergency planning and response. We will therefore:

 ensure that our emergency response plans include appropriate arrangements for flooding emergencies and that such plans are reviewed, in consultation with the Environment Agency, at least every two years;  maintain an awareness of the Environment Agency’s warning dissemination plan for our area and contribute to its implementation as necessary; and  play an agreed role in any flood warning emergency exercises organised by the Environment Agency covering our area.

Key Objective (b): To encourage the provision of adequate, economically, technically and environmentally sound and sustainable flood defence measures.

Sheffield City Council will:

 provide an adequate, economically, technically and environmentally sound approach to providing the flood defence service.  adopt a strategic approach to provision of flood defences. We accept that new or improved defence measures should not be considered in isolation and that their potential effects on other parts of the watercourse and catchment need to be assessed before decisions are taken. We will therefore continue to play a full role in the Environment Agency’s Catchment Management Plan and Local Environment Agency Plan for our area;  where required, assess the sustainability of different defence options taking account of river processes. We recognise that we should not commit future generations to unsustainable and uneconomic flood defences. The aim is to provide sustainable flood defences which provide social and/or economic benefits to people without having a detrimental effect on the environment, whilst making wise use of resources;  consult the Environment Agency on flood defence options to ensure that best practice is adopted and shared;  ensure that we maintain an up-to-date awareness of policy and technical developments in flood defence, in particular by reference to DEFRA & EA guidance, other Government publications and relevant technical manuals;  adopt development control policies to limit and reduce where feasible, surface water discharges, in accordance with PPG/PPS 25.  where appropriate seek suitable contributions from developers or other direct beneficiaries of works, in accordance with PPG/PPS 25.  consider alternative approaches to funding, such as Public Private Partnerships;  ensure the appropriate maintenance regimes are in place for flood defences for which the Council takes responsibility. We will also ensure that landowners are aware of, and accept, their own responsibilities for maintenance;  make publicly available the Council’s expenditure plans for flood defence maintenance and capital works.  play a positive role in fulfilling our statutory and other responsibilities for nature conservation including achievement of the Government’s environmental obligations and targets. We acknowledge our responsibilities under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and as a competent authority under the terms of the Conversation (Natural Habitats and c.) Regulations 1994. When carrying out flood defence and/or watercourse improvement works, we will:  aim to avoid damage to environmental interest and seek opportunities for environmental enhancement;  aim to ensure no net loss of habitats covered by Biodiversity Action Plans (and will monitor all losses and gains of such habitats as a result of these operations and report on them to the Environment Agency;  ensure that, for those Water Level Management Plans where we are the lead operating authority; we work in partnership with English Nature to complete, implement and review Plans in accordance with MAFF guidance on plan completion and the timetable set out in MAFF High Level Targets. Key Objective (c): To discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding

Sheffield City Council will ensure that, as the local planning authority for our area, we take account of flooding risks when considering development plans and individual planning applications, in accordance with PPG 25. We will consult with the Environment Agency with regard to flood risk assessments. The Council will undertake a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the City’s area in accordance with the recommended procedures and review this at appropriate intervals.

3. Flooding risks in the Council’s area

3.1 Sheffield City Council’s area is predominantly urban with a significant area of sparsely populated upland in the western half of the City’s boundary. The topography is hilly with many river and stream valleys.

3.2 Sheffield City Council is the relevant operating authority for flood defences on ordinary watercourses. The Environment Agency is the operating authority for flood defence on designated main rivers, including Critical Ordinary Watercourses (COWs), which, within the Council’s area, are as follows: Main River = River Don, (part), , River Rother, , , Hartley Brook, COWs = Abbey Brook, Bagley Dike, Car Brook, Charlton Brook, Clough Dike, Ecclesfield Brook, Kirkbridge Dike, River Little Don, , Ochre Dike, , , River Sheaf (part), Shirtcliffe Brook, Brook, Whitley Brook The main river & COWs designations, totalling approximately 92km, cover some of these watercourses only in part; the actual lengths can be examined on plans available for inspection at either the Environment Agency or the Council offices. COWs are critical because they have the potential to put large numbers of people and property at risk from flooding.

3.3 There is an extensive network of ordinary watercourses, both open channel and culverted, for which the Council is the relevant operating authority and, therefore, has discretionary powers for the exercise of maintenance. The Council will not normally exercise its land drainage authority powers for maintenance of watercourses or flood defences, unless there is perceived to be a critical importance, particularly in terms of flood risk to human life. Where Council Departments are riparian owners, they will be expected to comply with their responsibilities for watercourse maintenance, including if appropriate flood defence maintenance.

3.4 Operating authorities, such as Sheffield City Council, are not obliged to carry out flood defence works. It is important to note that the Council, in its operating authority role, does not normally accept responsibility for maintenance of watercourse channels or flood defences on private land; this is the responsibility of the riparian landowner.

3.5 Sheffield City Council has provided the Environment Agency with information on the flood defences and assets for which the Council is responsible. This information is available from the Environment Agency at Phoenix House, Global Avenue, Leeds.

Flood risks from these watercourses

3.6 This section sets out the Council’s assessment of the flood risk from these watercourses taking into account the following factors:  the defences already in place, including their design standard and design life;  the Environment Agency’s flood risk maps; and  other information available to the Council including the past history of flooding in the area and proposals for development and change in land use

3.7 The primary area in the City at risk is the Sheaf Valley, which is main river (i.e. the Environment Agency is operating authority). The Council is satisfied that there are minimal risks to human life, provided the Agency’s flood warnings are heeded (see below).

With the spread of urban development, many ordinary watercourses in the area have been culverted, in whole or in part. Where watercourses remain open, adjacent development has often resulted in man-made channels with vertical banking. The past canalising and culverting of many watercourses in the urban area has often resulted in the reduction of discharge capacity and the loss of storage volume for stormwater, which was previously provided in the natural open channels and washlands. The capacities of these watercourses to pass floodwater now vary tremendously, with many unable to pass the flow generated by a storm of 1 in 1 year average return period. The Council has not undertaken assessments to ascertain the actual capacities or the flood risks presented by ordinary watercourses. Information on flooding is historical. The EA are undertaking condition and capacity surveys on all the main rivers & COWs and this will inform future planning.

3.8 The level of protection for flood defence is relatively low for the ordinary watercourses. However, the actual flood risk to most properties is low because sloping ground normally allows floodwater to pass into the main river valley bottoms rather than spreading to any great depth. There are a small number of properties affected to a minor degree by floodwater:- i) backing up from insufficiently sized culverts or poorly maintained culverts/grilles; ii) passing overland from these watercourses; iii) collecting in valley bottoms; iv) backing up when ordinary watercourses cannot discharge freely into main rivers & COWs, which are in spate. The Council is satisfied that there is minimal risk to human life from ordinary watercourse flooding, provided sensible precautions are taken.

Reduction and Management of these risks

3.9 The main means by which the flood risks in the lower Sheaf Valley will be reduced is through the Environment Agency’s warning dissemination plan dated 3/11/97 [revised 10/2/99], which make arrangements for warnings to be provided individually to high risk properties. No formal warning system exists for any other properties. Sheffield City Council has plans for responding to major incidents, including flooding, in its emergency planning procedures and has arrangements for cascading warnings received from the Environment Agency to relevant Council services. The Council in its role as the Highway Authority also has an emergency plan for flooding of the highways.

3.10 The Council does not operate any formal or regular inspection system on ordinary watercourses and culverts, except for those where the Council is responsible as the Highway Authority. Where reports of blockage/debris are received, the Council will take appropriate action to try and ensure rectification by the relevant riparian owner. Where necessary, the Council will use its enforcement powers to ensure adequate maintenance of watercourses. The Council using the Land Drainage Act 1991 powers, may occasionally undertake such maintenance work, if there is an urgent reason to do.

3.11 The Council only takes responsibility for maintenance of flood defences where it is the relevant riparian landowner or the Highway Authority. There is at present no routine maintenance regime in place to inspect defences on ordinary watercourses or check their design standards. The Council currently does not have any plans to finance the provision of additional flood defences on ordinary watercourses. The Council, as the Land Drainage Authority, has undertaken very little work on the construction of flood defences in the last couple of decades. The provision of a small budget for capital land drainage work in 2005/06 has allowed some watercourse improvement works to be programmed, for example to reinstate the proper discharge channels at a number of problem locations. A list of potential schemes is held; these are mainly related to watercourse improvements, rather than specific flood defences. The priority for any works will be based on the assessed risk of flooding to properties and the potential liability to the Council.

3.12 In addition the Council, as Highway Authority, currently has a small budget for expenditure on sites where drainage problems affect the public highway. A list of potential works is maintained and prioritised. The current budget provided allows for around 10 to 20 of these problems to be addressed each year and the length of the list is currently reducing annually. The Highway Authority role may also necessitate works on adjacent land, either to ensure that highway drainage remains effective or to prevent water from running onto the highway.

3.13 The Council will provide a service for investigation and advice regarding drainage matters, including flooding problems. The Council will offer technical guidance on drainage practice. The Council will assist in raising awareness of flood risk where appropriate.

3.14 By following Government guidance in PPG 25 on development in flood risks areas, the Council, acting as local planning authority, will ensure that risks are further minimised.

3.15 The Council has appointed a consultant to undertake a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the City, in line with the recommendations of PPG25, the Yorkshire And Regional Assembly and the EA. This work should be completed by Spring 2006 and will provide guidance for future planning.

4 Review of this policy statement

4.1 The Council has set out its policy and approach to flood defence. We recognise the need to work in partnership with central Government and other operating authorities. Our local population also has an important part to play, i.e. in recognising the vital importance of watercourses for controlling flood risk and especially the need to avoid blockages, which may be caused by dumping rubbish or obstructing flows in other ways. We ask members of the public to let us know of any problems, which might increase the risk of flooding.

4.2 Sheffield City Council intends to keep this policy statement under regular review and it will be revised and reissued as necessary. The Council welcomes any comments on the approach and policies set out in this statement.

References

1 Strategy for Flood and Coastal Defence in England and Wales MAFF and Welsh Office, September 1993

2 High Level Targets for Flood and Coastal Defence Operating Authorities and Elaboration of the Environment Agency’s Flood Defence Supervisory Duty, MAFF, November 1991

P.Berry Team Manager, Land Drainage Group, Development Services, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB tel 0114 2735848 or 47 Nov. 2005 Appendix 2 - Location of Main Rivers, including Critical Ordinary Watercourses Name Nearest Identifiable O.S. N.G.R. Downstream O.S. N.G.R. Length Main River upstream point Main river approx. adopted 1996 m COW 2004 River Don BMBC boundary SK 2890 9896 R RMBC boundary SK 4023 9208 25500 MR SK 2947 9836 L River Sheaf u/s Twentywell Rd culvert SK 3231 8118 R Don SK 3587 8774 9000 MR River Rother * NEDDC boundary SK 4404 8004 L RMBC, d/s Retford Rd SK 4322 8571 L 8000 MR Blackburn Brook u/s A61, Storrs tributary SK 3358 9842 R Don SK 3930 9129 12000 MR Hartley Brook u/s Ecclesfield Rd SK 3659 9375 Blackburn Brook SK 3672 9381 150 MR Porter Brook Forge Dam outlet SK 3033 8492 R Sheaf SK 3589 8682 6000 1996 River Loxley Dam Flask outlet SK 2855 9059 R Don SK 3420 8942 6500 1996 Abbey Brook u/s Bocking Close SK 3405 8213 River Sheaf SK 3278 8221 1435 COW Bagley Dike u/s NGHospital culvert SK 3630 9086 River Don SK 3851 9052 3100 COW Car Brook rear 652 PoW Rd SK 3937 8721 River Don SK 3869 9016 3370 COW Car Brook – Weedon St Surbiton Street bifurcn. SK 3891 8970 River Don SK 3863 9058 1300 COW Charlton Brook Blackburn Drive D/S Side SK 3489 9686 Blackburn Brook SK 3544 9699 650 COW Clough Dike rear 74 Fox Glen Rd SK 2798 9776 River Don SK 2844 9813 660 COW Ecclesfield Brook St Mary’s Lane SK 3545 9415 Whitley Brook SK 3604 9411 635 COW Kirkbridge Dike d/s Acres Hill Rd SK 3864 8746 River Don SK 3815 8946 2465 COW River Little Don d/s Underbank Resvr SK 2533 9916 River Don SK 2905 9795 4220 COW Meers Brook u/s Northcote Avenue SK 3581 8452 River Sheaf SK 3498 8489 1075 COW Ochre Dike u/s Drakehouse Lane SK 4379 8307 River Rother SK 4454 8414 1475 COW Oldhay Brook Railway d/s of Aqueduct SK 3099 8019 River Sheaf SK 3182 8044 1015 COW River Rivelin Weir SK 3216 8836 River Loxley SK 3256 8932 1305 COW River Sheaf ** Oldhay Brook Conf SK 3182 8044 River Sheaf (as above) SK 3231 8118 1000 COW Shirtcliffe Brook u/s Railway, Goathland Dr SK 4247 8547 River Rother SK 4317 8583 880 COW u/s Mickley Lane SK 3165 7984 River Sheaf SK 3182 8044 845 COW Whitley Brook d/s Church St SK 3558 9457 Blackburn Brook SK 3638 9413 1060 COW 54650 MR * all 8km length shared boundary with RMBC TOTAL = 93,640m = 94 km 12500 1990s ** extended length from original Main River 26490 COW

Appendix 3 – Drainage Information

Sheets by SCC Drainage office

 SCC – Flood Defence Statement (Dec. 05) - due to be adopted June ’06.

 SCC – Drainage enquiries & complaints table - circulated to SCC enquiry points

Drainage responsibilities - Leeds CC document, similar to SCC above

 General notes for the public

 Drainage with regard to premises

 Watercourse & Land Drainage notes

 Water problems

 Watercourses – in new developments

 Public sewer records display notice

 Drainage office staff guidance

 Note to accompany drainage information supplied internally

The above sheets are available to Members or other SCC staff on request.

Tel Land Drainage office on (0114) 27 35847

Other useful information regarding Drainage matters in available on the web site of Leeds City Council and the Environment Agency:-

www.leeds.gov.uk/ choosing “Land Drainage” from the A to Z menu.

www.environment-agency.gov.uk choosing “what’s in my back yard” from the menu and following through to the Flood Zone map if required. Appendix 4 – SCC Planning policies & planning conditions with respect to drainage

CURRENT STRATEGIC POLICIES WITHIN THE UDP

Green Environment

GE16 Lakes, Ponds and Dams

GE17 Rivers and Streams

GE18 Sheffield and Tinsley Canal

GE19 Water Resources

GE20 Flood Defence

GE21 Protection of Washlands

GE22 Pollution

GE26 Water Quality of Waterways

DRAINAGE CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS

C562 Surface water and foul drainage shall drain to separate systems

C563 Surface water shall not discharge into a public foul sewer

C564 Surface water drainage shall be to soakaways

C565 Protection of public sewer

C566 Protection of watercourse

C571 Petrol/oil interceptor

C572 Completion of surface water drainage works

C570 Storage of oils, fuels or chemicals

C893 Surface water run off 8 litres

C894 Surface water run off 5 litres

Appendix 5 – Consultations and Reports

 High Level Targets - MAFF - 1999

 Lessons Learned from Autumn 2000 floods - EA - 2001

 Inland Flood Defence - National Audit Office - 2001

 Learning to live with Rivers - Institution of Civil Engineers - 2001

 Living on the edge - EA - 2001

 PPG25 - Dept Transport, LG&Regions - 2001

 2001Flood & Coastal Defence - Defra - 2001/02

 SUDs consultation - EA - 2003

 Water Act 2003

 Review of private drains and sewers - Defra - 2003

 Foresight - Government Office of Science & Technology -- 2004

 Code of Practice for SUDs - ODPM - 2004

 Engineering skills for flood management - Institution of Civil Engineers - 2004

 At Risk - Yorkshire & Humberside Assembly & EA - 2004

 Development & flood risk - CIRIA - 2004 Plus various other CIRIA guides, e.g. on SUDs designs

 Making space for water - Defra - 2004

 Climate change action plan for Yorkshire & the Humber - Y&H Assembly - 2005

 Evidence & innovation strategy - Defra - 2005

 Review of flood risk management - EA & Defra - 2005

 Local Authority State of the Environment Report, Sheffield - EA - 2005

 PPS25 draft - ODPM - 2006

The above list is by no means exhaustive, there being many other publications regarding, for example, flood reports by the EA.

Copies of the above are kept in the Land Drainage Group office at Carbrook and are available to Council Members and officers, who wish to borrow them for further reading.