FLOODRISKASSESSMENT ADDENDUMtoFRADated1stOctober2007

October2012
H17Allocation,HighbridgeUpdateonFloodRiskbasedonBoatyard Applicationreceivingaplanningconsent Introduction TheoriginalFRAfortheGaiaPartnership/SedgemoorDistrictCouncil/Wessex Waterland(Consortiumland)waspreparedtosupportplanningapplication 1/11/07/192lodgedinOctober2007.TheFRAwasbasedontheassumptionthat thesitewouldrequireaninterimflooddefenceschemeuntilsuchtimeastheother partoftheH17allocation,theboatyardsitemadeaplanningapplication. TheBoatyardsitehasnowmadethatapplicationandtheCouncilhasresolvedto grantplanningpermissionfortheboatyardsitesresidentialdevelopment,subject toconditionsandas106agreementthatwillrequirethedeliveryofanew, permanentflooddefencewhichwillclosethegapintheexistingflooddefencefor HighbridgeandpartsofBurnhamonSea. ThisFRAaddendumhasbeenproducedtosummarisethecurrentsituation. FloodLevelsandDefences The2007FRAsubmittedwiththeplanningapplicationwasbasedona1in200year stillwatertidelevelof7.90m;thishassubsequentlyincreasedto8.02in2012. Addingsealevelrise(climatechangeinfluence)over100yearshasincreasedfrom 8.6min2007to9.02min2012. Theoriginal2007flooddefencelevelagreedwiththeEAwas8.90m;thishasnow increasedto9.10mintheboatyardproposals. Currentpredictionsforsealevelriseare3.5mmayearuntil2025then8.0mmayear until2055.Applyingthesealevelrisemm/yearcriteriameansthatattheendofthe CoreStrategyplanperiod(2027)thesealevelwillhaverisenby62mm. TheboatyardhasbeensetaminimumFFLof8.6mandgroundlevelsof8.3mbythe EA.Theselevelstieintoexistingadjoininglandandaresetbasedonthepotential forabreachintheflooddefence.Developmentsitesfurtherawayfromthefront lineofflooddefencedonothavetobeashighasthesevalues. Atpresentthelowestsitelevelontheboatyardis7.95minoneisolatedlocation. ElsewheretheboatyardfrontagetotheBrueisabove8.20m.The70mmdepthof water(8.027.95m)thatwouldpropagatethroughthelowspotissosmallitwould notcauseanyinconveniencetohouseswithafloorlevel300mmaboveground level.ThisfactissupportedbytheEAintheirfreeboardrequirementnotedabove. Thetotalpotentialdepthoffloodingofupto132mmwouldrunthroughthe boatyardsiteintotheconsortiumlandbutnotfloodhouseswitha300mm freeboard. 1

ProposedapproachforGaiaWessexlandinrelationtodrainageandfloodrisk a) TheConsortiumlandcannowrelyonthedeliveryoftheflooddefencesbeingprovidedby SedgemoorDistrictCouncil(SDC)intheCoreStrategyperiodeitheraspartoftheboatyard sitedevelopmentorviatheCouncilanditspartnersimplementationoftheflooddefences; b) TheConsortiumlandhasboundaryconstraintswithexistinghousingandroads.Thesite howevercanberaisedtoaminimumof6.7minthesouthreducingto6.5minthenorthto mimictheexistingscenariowherebreachoroverlandfloodflowswouldflownorththrough ratherthanpondingonthesite.TheaccessoffNewtownRoadisatanaveragelevelof 6.35m. c) Minimumfloorlevelsofnewpropertieswillbesetatleast300mmabovethesurrounding groundlevel; d) Surfacewaterdrainagewillhaveadirectdischargetothetidalestuarythroughaconnection totheexistingWessexWaterpipetothewestofthesite.Thepipesonsitewillbeoversized tostorethesurfacewaterrunoffduringatidelockscenariooftheWessexWateroutfall. The1in100yearrainfalleventplusa30%allowanceforincreasedrainfallintensitydueto climatechangewillbeusedtosizethepipesonceamoredetailedlayoutanddevelopment densityisknown. FundingoftheFloodDefences PoliciesP3andS2oftheAdoptedCoreStrategyseektodeliverinfrastructureschemeswhichinclude floodriskmanagementthroughtheimplementationofaCommunityInfrastructureLevy(CIL). HeCounciliscurrentlyconsultingaboutadraftchargingschedulewithaviewtointroducingCILand itsconsultationdocumentconfirmsthatsuchfundingcouldbeusedforflooddefencesinthearea. Theconsultationalsosuggestsotherformsoffunding(e.g.theNewHomesBonus)couldbeusedto fundsuchworks.Thisfundingcouldbeusedtohelpsecurethedeliveryandmaintenanceofflood alleviationworksiftheboatyardsitedoesnotprogressthroughtoaconstructionphaseintheshort termanditsdeliveryfrustratesotherregenerationprojectsintheHighbridgearea. TheCouncilcouldalsoconsiderwhetheras106contributionmightberequiredfromthisandother developmentsintheHighbridgeareathatwouldbenefitfromthedefencestohelpfundthe implementationoffloodalleviationworksontheboatyardsiteintheunlikelyeventthatthe constructionphasedoesnotcomeforwardwithinareasonabletimescale. However,giventherateatwhichsealevelispredictedtorise,theCouncilanditspartnerswould havethefulllengthoftheCoreStrategyperiodtosecurethefundingandimplementationofthe floodalleviationworksontheboatyardsiteintheeventthattheconstructionphasedoesnotcome forward.Duringthisperiod,theriskoftidalfloodingonthisapplicationsitewouldnotbecome significantuntilaftertheCoreStrategyperiod(i.e.2027). Anotherwayofmitigatingthesealevelriseintheconsortiumlandmightbetoincreasethe300mm freeboardto450mmtocompensateforthepotential132mmdepthofflowingwater. FloodDefenceCost&Length ThelengthoftheflooddefenceintheapplicationFRAwasestimatedat180m,consistingof160m piled wall and 20m of masonry wall. Our cost estimate based on information from Delta civil 2

engineering was 185,640 for construction and 10,500 for 5 year maintenance. Updating this to currentdaycostsreferringtoSponsEstimatingPriceBookasaguideourupdatedestimateis590 620kincludingfor100yearsinspectionandmaintenance. ThelengthofdefencesuggestedintheSDCLevel2SFRA(Jan2009)wasquotedas300m.Thecosts suggestedbyScottWilsonfora300mpiledwallwas4.98mfora1.22.1mhighdefencewall.Pro ratafora160mlengthofwallthiswouldbe2.66m.BasedondiscussionswiththeEAthisfigure includes for all site investigation work, preliminary designs, a 900mm outfall pipe, estates compensation and negotiation on third party land and a 50% contingency for unseen ground conditions.Moredetailofthecostbuildupisincludedinparagraphs5.35.3.6intheLevel2SFRA. The extract of the Scott Wilson Level 2 SFRA report below details the cost assumptions:

TheEAacknowledgedinatelephoneconversationearlierthisyear(JSouthwell/NSmith)thatthere was an error in the original wall length quoted in the SFRA and that the cost of the new wall and ongoingmaintenanceislikelytobelessthan1mnowgiventhatanumberoftheitemscoveredby theestimatewillnotapplyi.e.groundinvestigation,thirdpartylandandestates,groundconditions anda900mmoutfallpipe. EALetterof21stFebruary2012Conditions Following the provision of an updated FRA the EA have withdrawn their objection to the boatyard siteprovidingsomeConditionsareimposedonthepermissiongranted.Oneoftheconditionsstates: No development shall commence until full details of the improvement of flood defences along the River Brue have been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The improvements shall include raising of the existing defences to a minimum crest level of 9.1m AOD. Thedevelopmentshallbeimplementedandmaintainedinaccordancewiththeapproveddetails. AfurtherconditionrelatestoOperationandMaintenanceManualfortheflooddefences.Thisdoes haveaPriortooccupationofthedwellingsclause SurfaceWaterDrainage AConditionrelatingtosurfacewaterdrainagehasalsobeenincludedintheEAletterwhichincludes therequirementforProvisionofanappropriatedrainageconnectiontoensuretheremainingpartof the H17 allocation can drain effectively. The Consortium land has an alternative surface water drainageoutfalllocatedintheWessex Waterland; thiswastheproposedoutfallinthe FRAandis stillsuitableforuse.Thelocationisshownbelow:

If the boatyard site were to make provision for the Consortium land to drain by gravity, their drainagewouldneedtobeupto22.5mdeeperthannormaltomeetthisconditionasthelowest groundlevelsontheConsortiumlandwillbe6.35mwhereastheboatyardwillbeat8.3m. Both sites will have to make allowance for the outfalls being tide locked and provide additional surfacewaterstorageduringthisscenario.Loweringthedrainageby22.5mwouldincreasethe 4

periodandfrequencyoftidelockoccurring.A1in100yearrainfalleventwith30%climatechange allowanceisthestormtheEAhavesuggestedshouldbeconsidered. Iftheboatyarddonotprovidethisstoragethenrainfallflowsmightliftmanholesandflowswould runintothelowerconsortiumland. IfthetwositesarelinkedassuggestedbytheEAthenflowcontrolbetweenthetwositeswouldbe neededtostopthelowestsitereceivingalltheattenuationvolumesthroughalinkedpipe. We do not therefore consider the surface water drainage condition to make provision for the Consortiumlandisapriorityasaseparateoutfallcreateslessoperationalissues. Conclusion BasedontheEAresponse,theboatyardFRAandSDCCoreStrategyPolicieswewouldexpecttheEA andtheCounciltohavenoobjectionsonfloodriskgroundstoourproposalstodevelopthe remainderoftheH17site,subjecttothevariousplanningconditions. TheCILoptionforsecuringtheflooddefencesreducestheriskofnondeliveryofthefloodwall aroundtheboatyardandthepotentialknockontotheproposedregenerationofHighbridge. Inthecontextoftheabove,progressontheboatyardsitesconstructionshouldnotholdbackthe constructionoftheremainderoftheH17siteforreasonsoffloodrisk. NigelSmithPrincipalEngineer RobsonLiddleLtd RL10003FRAAddendumV212.10.12