Faber Maunsell

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007/8 Revision)

C1

Strategic Flood Risk Mapping Methodology

C.1

Appendix C of this Report describes the hydraulic models used, their application to the
Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, and the processes involved in the production of
the Strategic Flood Risk Maps and Hazard Zone Maps. Numerous two-dimensional
models using Tuflow modelling software were created to model the overland passage of
flood water from breaches in floodbanks along embanked watercourses.

The Modelled Area

C.2

The extent of the modelled area includes the whole of the Borough of Kings Lynn and
West Norfolk below the level of about 6mOD. It was found necessary to extend the
boundary of the models beyond the Boroughs boundary in order to represent the passage
of flood water across the Boroughs boundaries without introducing unacceptable boundary
effects in the modelling.

C.3

Although the downstream end of the tidal outfall channel of the River Nene is outside the
Borough boundary, a breach in the right bank of the River Nene within the neighbouring
district (South Holland) downstream of Sutton Bridge had to be modelled as flooding from
this section of the Nene could potentially cause flooding within the Borough.

Model Input Data and Sources of Data Topography

C.4

The ground elevation model of the fens and floodplains was based on LiDAR (Light
Detection and And Ranging) digital terrain model data supplied by the Environment
Agency. Unfortunately this data had an incomplete coverage of the Borough, in particular
there was no coverage of a substantial area of the fens to the west of the Middle Level
Main Drain and the much of the Ely Ouse floodplain see Figure C1.

C.5

The missing areas of LiDAR coverage were infilled using digital terrain model (DTM) data
from the Ordnance Surveys SAR database. SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) data is
available with a 5 metre horizontal grid but is of poorer vertical accuracy than LiDAR data.
However when comparing SAR data with LiDAR data and ground levels shown on the
Ordnance Surveys 1:25,000 scale mapping in areas of missing LiDAR data, the SAR data
was found to be sufficiently accurate to use without further adjustment.

C.6

In the rural areas of the Borough the topography was derived from filtered LiDAR. Filtered
LiDAR is essentially a bare earth model and excludes the presence of buildings and
vegetation.

C.7

In the urban areas of Kings Lynn and South Lynn, the surface model of the floodplain was
based on unfiltered LiDAR data. The surface model, which takes into consideration the
presence of buildings and vegetation, was used, rather than filtered LiDAR, as one of the
deliverables specified in the Brief was to map flood flow pathways within the Kings Lynn
urban study area. Conversely, to model flood flow pathways in West Lynn filtered LiDAR
data was used to represent the floodplain with building footprints manually incorporated
into the model. This was because of the extensive amount of vegetation within the
floodplain in this area.

Model Input Data and Sources of Data Defences

C.8

The spatial locations of the defences were derived from the Environment Agencys
National Flood & Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD) dataset. All defence crest levels
have been taken from the NFCDD. Any secondary defences within the Borough have
been incorporated as topographical features in the surface model by increasing the ground
level to the defence crest level given in the NFCDD dataset.

Faber Maunsell

C.9

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007/8 Revision)

C2

The defence type has also been taken from the NFCDD and, where possible, verified by
observations made during site visits. Ground levels immediately to the rear of defences
have been obtained from the LiDAR data.

Model Input and Sources of Data Breach Locations and Parameters

C.10

In order to model the effect of flood water issuing from a breach in the sea defences or in
the flood defences along embanked watercourses, both tidal and fluvial, a total of 45
breach locations were selected. These breach locations were selected, after discussion
and agreement with the Environment Agency, to give a pattern of flooding representative
of a typical breach in the flood compartment in which that breach occurred. Figure C2
shows the locations of all the breaches modelled in the study.

C.11

The breach parameters for all the breach locations were based on guidance provided by
the Environment Agency. The maximum depth of the breach was assumed to be the
ground level at the landward toe of the defence. Breach widths and the time taken to close
the breach will vary depending upon the type of the defence, its location and accessibility.
These parameters were based on the figures in Table C1 below provided by the
Environment Agency.

Defence Location

Defence Type

Breach Width (m)

Time to Close (hrs)

Open Coast

Earth Bank

200

72

Dunes

100

72

Hard

50

36

Sluice

Sluice Width

24

Earth Bank

50

36

Hard

20

18

Earth Bank

50

36

Hard

20

18

Earth Bank

40

30

Hard

20

18

Estuary

Tidal River

Fluvial River

Table C1

Breach Widths and Time to Close

C.12

For the purposes of Strategic Flood Risk mapping, any breach in a defence, irrespective of
the defence standard or condition, was assumed to occur only when the flood level
reached the crest level of a soft defence. It was assumed that hard defences would not
breach if overtopped.

C.13

For the purposes of Hazard Zone mapping, breaches were automatically assumed to
occur in a defence, either soft or hard and irrespective of the defence standard or
condition, when the peak flood level in a 100-year event occurred, whether or not the
defence had been overtopped.

Faber Maunsell

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007/8 Revision)

C3

Model Input and Sources of Data Surface Roughness (Mannings n Coefficients)

C.14

The rate at which flood water will flow overland across a floodplain from a breach in a
defence line will be strongly influenced by the roughness of the ground surface over which
it flows. This will in turn depend on the state of cultivation of farmland and the density and
height of any vegetation in the path of the floodwater. (Large, solid obstructions such as
buildings are accounted for in the LiDAR ground model data.) The numerical values of
Mannings n coefficients provide a standard estimate of surface roughness in hydraulic
calculations. All of the breach models utilised the Mannings n roughness coefficients
shown in Table B2 below.
Mannings n Value

Description

0.02

Roads, concrete, paved surfaces etc

0.035

Maintained river channels

0.04

Mown fields (playing fields etc)

0.05

Grazed fields or meadows (Default value)

0.055

Scrubland

0.08

Residential urban (accounts for gardens, fences etc)

0.10

Trees and woodland

0.15

Dense urban

Table C2

Mannings n Coefficients used in Breach Modelling

Model Input and Sources of Data Hydrology of Flood Risk Sources

C.15

The level of the water retained by the flood defence when overtopping and/or a breach
occurs has a major influence on the rate and volume of flow through the breach (or over
the defence if only overtopping occurs) and hence on the extent of the flood envelope and
the hazard zone. In the case of tidal defences this level is obtained from current estimates
of peak tide levels for specified return periods provided by the Environment Agency. In
fluvial rivers this level is the peak flood level in the river at the breach location obtained
from hydrological and hydraulic river modelling undertaken previously.

C.16

The water levels thus obtained are nominally at rest water levels. In practice the water
surface of the river or estuary will be disturbed by rapid currents or wave action and the
actual water level will fluctuate about the at rest level and some overtopping will begin to
occur before the at rest flood level reaches defence crest level, although probably not
enough to create a breach in a soft defence. Nevertheless a conservative approach will
be taken and a degree of freeboard - 0.3m for a river and 0.6m for a tidal estuary - has
been deducted from the actual crest level, giving a nominal crest level to allow for this
effect. (The coastal situation, where severe wave action may be expected, is dealt with
separately.)

C.17

For each breach the flood risk source has been modelled as a head~time (HT) boundary
within the Tuflow model. These HT boundaries were derived from various onedimensional (1D) models of the river systems, the results from which were provided by the
Environment Agency. HT boundaries were required to determine the extents of the
following flood envelopes :Zone 3 (Present day)

100 year event (fluvial) or 200 year event (tidal)

Zone 2 (Present day)

1000 year event

Zone 3 (Year 2115)

100 year event (fluvial) or 200 year event (tidal) including the
effects of climate change to the year 2115.

Zone 2 (Year 2115)

1000 year event including the effects of climate change to the

year 2115.

Faber Maunsell

C.18

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007/8 Revision)

C4

The River models from which the 100 year, 1000 year etc peak fluvial flood levels at the
points along those rivers where breaches were located and modelled were obtained are
described and discussed individually in the following paragraphs. These models represent
the most recent hydrological and hydraulic modelling undertaken by or on behalf of the
Environment Agency or other body on that river.
River Great Ouse (including New Bedford and Old Bedford Rivers)

C.19

Stage hydrographs were obtained from river modelling undertaken by Black and Veatch for
the Great Ouse Tidal River Strategy Study (Ref.C1a). This study produced modelled
results for return periods ranging from 2 to 500 years at the present day and corresponding
results with the inclusion of the predicted effects of climate change to the years 2025,
2055, 2085, 2108.

C.20

In order to provide a proper representation of the full range of flood probabilities, return
periods between 1 and 1000 years are required. To define the 1000-year hydrograph, the
peak flood level was taken from the Report on Extreme Tide Levels (February 2007)
produced by the Environment Agency (Ref.C1b). The modelled 200-year hydrographs
from the Great Ouse Tidal Strategy Study were then reconfigured upwards up to this level.
River Ely Ouse (including Rivers Little Ouse and Wissey)

C.21

A HEC-RAS model was produced by JBA Consulting in 2007 for an Areas Benefiting from
Defences (ABD) study of the Ely Ouse Catchment (Ref.C2). Only two of the model
simulations were found to be of interest in this study:

Fluvial Flood a 100 year return period event with a normal spring tide as the
downstream boundary, and

Tidal Flood a 200 year return period tidal surge event for the downstream
boundary, combined with a 2 year return period fluvial event.

C.22

For this study stage hydrographs at the breach locations were extracted from the fluvial
flood model results and use as the inflow hydrograph into the 2D breach scenario model of
the floodplain within the flood compartment.

C.23

There were no 1000 year return period modelled results or any climate change prediction
modelled results available from that study.
River Nar

C.24

Stage hydrographs were extracted from a 1D ISIS model of the River Nar constructed by
Royal Haskoning in the early 2000s (Refs.C3a&b). Only the 25 year and 100 year return
period events were modelled in that study. There were no 1000 year return period
modelled results or any climate change prediction modelled results available from that
study.
River Nene

C.25

Downstream of Wisbech the rivers tidal outfall channel forms the western boundary of the
Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk for a distance of 6.4km, and although the
Borough boundary subsequently diverges from the river the river continues to constitute a
source of flood risk to the Borough west of Terrington St Clement.

C.26

Although flood levels along these sections of the river are primarily influenced by tide
levels in the Wash the 1D ISIS model of the River Nene is based primarily on a fluvial flood
event. It was however decided in consultation with the Environment Agency that in the
model the stage hydrograph in the river should be based on the tide level in the Wash.
The peak levels were therefore taken from the Report on Extreme Tide Levels (February
2007) (Ref.C1b) and applied to a recorded tide level hydrograph at Kings Lynn during the
storm surge in November 2007.

Faber Maunsell

C.27

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007/8 Revision)

C5

Predicted sea level rise to the year 2115 was calculated from Tables B1 and B2 in PPS25.
The modelled 200-year hydrograph and the modelled 1000-year hydrograph were then
reconfigured upwards to this level to produce a hydrograph for the 200 year and 1000 year
with climate change hydrographs respectively.
Wash Banks

C.28

Estimates of peak tide levels for extreme events were obtained from the Report on
Extreme Tide Levels (February 2007) provided by the Environment Agency (Ref.C1b).
That report gives peak tide levels for 51 locations along the Environment Agencys Anglian
Region coastline, of which eight are of specific interest to this study. The report also
provides extreme tide levels within estuaries and tidal rivers at 25 locations, of which five
are of specific interest in this study. Peak tide levels for the total of 13 locations are given
in Table C3 below.

Return Period (years)

Location

10

20

25

50

100

200

250

500

1000

Burnham

3.96

4.35

4.52

4.70

4.75

4.92

5.09

5.26

5.31

5.48

5.65

Brancaster

4.16

4.54

4.70

4.87

4.92

5.08

5.24

5.41

5.46

5.62

5.79

Holme-next-theSea

4.46

4.83

4.99

5.15

5.20

5.36

5.52

5.68

5.73

5.89

6.04

Hunstanton

4.73

5.09

5.24

5.40

5.45

5.60

5.76

5.91

5.96

6.11

6.27

Heacham

4.81

5.16

5.31

5.47

5.52

5.67

5.82

5.97

6.02

6.18

6.33

4.86

5.21

5.36

5.51

5.56

5.71

5.86

6.02

6.07

6.22

6.37

4.93

5.28

5.43

5.58

5.63

5.78

5.93

6.08

6.13

6.28

6.43

4.88

5.22

5.37

5.52

5.57

5.71

5.86

6.01

6.06

6.21

6.35

Kings Lynn

4.93

5.28

5.43

5.58

5.63

5.78

5.93

6.08

6.13

6.28

6.43

Tail Sluice

4.97

5.32

5.47

5.62

5.67

5.82

5.97

6.12

6.17

6.32

6.47

Stowbridge

4.94

5.29

5.44

5.59

5.64

5.79

5.94

6.09

6.14

6.29

6.44

Denver Sluice

4.96

5.21

5.31

5.42

5.45

5.56

5.66

5.77

5.8

5.91

6.02

Snettisham
Scalp
Mouth of the
Great Ouse
Mouth of the
River Nene

Table C3

Extreme Tide Levels in the Study Area (2007 Estimates)

C.29

For each tidal breach location the peak stage was applied to a recorded tide level of the
hydrograph at Kings Lynn (Freebridge) during the storm surge event of November 2007,
details of which were provided by the Environment Agency. Predicted sea level rise to the
year 2115 was calculated from Tables B1 and B2 in PPS25. The modelled 200-year
hydrograph and the modelled 1000-year hydrograph were then reconfigured upwards to
this level to produce a hydrograph for the 200 year and 1000 year with climate change
hydrographs respectively.

C.30

Two types of outputs have been produced for the whole of the Borough, namely:

Strategic Flood Risk Maps

Strategic Flood Hazard Maps

Strategic Flood Risk Maps

C.31

The two flood risk scenarios modelled in this study were as follows:

Flood risk at present (taken as 2008)

Flood risk in the year 2115 (i.e with the effects of 100+ years of climate change)

Faber Maunsell

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007/8 Revision)

C6

C.32

Predicted estimates of the effects of climate change on extreme tide levels and fluvial flood
levels used in the climate change scenario were taken from Tables B1 and B2 in PPS25.

C.33

The strategic flood risk maps illustrate the actual annual probability of flooding (taking into
consideration the effect of existing flood defences) at any location in the Borough. The
strategic maps are based on the assumption that if the defences are overtopped in the
100/200 year (Category 3) and/or 1000 year (Category 2) events the corresponding flood
extent as a result of a breach in that flood cell will be shown.

C.34

The flood risk zones used in these maps are defined as follows:
Category 3
Category 2

Category 1

Any area within which the actual probability of flooding is greater than
1% for fluvial flooding or greater than 0.5% for tidal flooding.
Any area within which the actual annual probability of flooding is
greater than 0.1% but less than 1% for fluvial flooding (less than 0.5%
for tidal flooding).
Any area within which the actual annual probability of flooding is less
than 0.1%.

C.35

These flood risk categories (zones) should not be confused with the flood zones used in
the Environment Agencys Flood Maps and Flood Zone Maps which show inherent flood
risk probabilities (i.e. flood risk without the presence of defences).

C.36

To define whether the defence is overtopped the crest level of the defence (from NFCDD)
was compared to the modelled or known water level in the River. If the water level was
greater than the crest level, the defence overtopped and therefore it was assumed that the
defence would also breach automatically. A freeboard of 600mm along the coastline and
300mm along the tidal rivers was also subtracted from the crest of the defence to take into
consideration he effect of wave action. No freeboard allowance was assumed on fluvial
rivers due to minimal wave action.

C.37

For the wash banks and the tidal rivers the flood extents are based on the breached flood
extent where the soft defences are overtopped.

C.38

For the fluvial rivers namely the River Nar, Old Bedford and River Ely Ouse (including
Rivers Little Ouse and Wissey) the present Flood Risk Category 3 is based on the breach
flood extent where the soft defences are overtopped. However no modelled results where
available for 1000 year event and no climate change estimates could be calculated without
re-running the existing hydraulic models. The present day fluvial Flood Risk Category 2 is
therefore based on Flood Risk Category 3 from the original SFRA published in 2005 and
the with climate change scenario to 2115 Flood Risk Category 3 is based on the present
Flood Risk Category 2. Due to the limited data along the fluvial rivers the with climate
change Flood Risk Category 2 has not been included in the study.
Results Flood Risk at Present

C.39

The actual flood risk is presented as a set of eleven Strategic Maps plotted on a
1/25,000.scale OS map base. In addition to these larger scale maps, sets of 1/10,000
scale maps have been produced for the major urban areas of Kings Lynn (2 maps),
Downham Market (1 map) and Hunstanton (1 map).

C.40

The tidal outfall channel of the Great Ouse downstream of Denver Sluice shows no
flooding for the present day scenario along all of its length except within the town of Kings
Lynn. This is because the crest levels of the rivers large earth embankments are above
both the 200-year and 1000-year flood levels (with an allowance for freeboard) and neither
overtopping nor the consequent breaching will occur. At Kings Lynn the crest levels of the
hard defences are somewhat lower and the town would experience flooding during a 200
year tidal event, although in this case it is assumed that there would be no consequent
breaching. The resultant flooding is however remarkably limited due also to the elevated
land levels within the old historic core of the town.

Faber Maunsell

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007/8 Revision)

C7

C.41

Although, based solely on defence levels, the North Norfolk coastline would only start to
experience tidal flooding during a 200+ year event, experience in 1953 and 1978 shows
that these defences, which consist mostly of a miscellany of earth banks, shingle banks
and sand dunes, are vulnerable to the destructive effects of open coast wave action and
therefore the whole of this coastline is deemed to fall into Flood Risk Category 3.

C.42

Due to the receding of the tidal flood extent along the coastline and at Kings Lynn, gaps in
the flood extent were experienced along four fluvial river system. These were the River
Heacham, River Babingley, Gaywood River/Bawsey Drain and Pierpoint Drain/Middleton
Stop Drain.

C.43

For the River Heacham and River Babingley the gap in the flood extent was drawn using
engineering judgement which was based on ground levels and possible barriers to the flow
of flood water.

C.44

For the Gaywood River/Bawsey Drain and the Middleton Stop/Pierpoint Drains Hannah
Reed Consultants provided modelled 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year with the inclusion of
climate change levels from the Gaywood River Strategic Catchment Review (2004) and
the Pierpoint Strategic Catchment Review (2007) respectively. The modelled water levels
were used to determine the Flood Risk Category 3 for all of the watercourses.

C.45

The majority of the Fenland areas are located in Flood Risk Category 2 with the exception
of the area to the west of the Old Bedford River which is located in Flood Risk Category 3.
Results Flood Risk in the year 2115

C.46

The actual flood risk in the year 2115 is presented as a set of eleven Strategic Maps
plotted on a 1/25,000.scale OS map base. In addition to these larger scale maps, sets of
1/10,000 scale maps have been produced for the major urban areas of Kings Lynn (2
maps), Downham Market (1 map) and Hunstanton (1 map).

C.47

The predicted rises in the sea and river levels cause all of the existing defences are
overtopped. The majority of the fens and all of the lower lying areas of land are in Flood
Risk Category 3. The elevated land in the north east of the Borough and the land to the
east of the River Great Ouse to the north of Downham market remain in Flood Risk
Category 1.
Strategic Flood Hazard Maps

C.48

The flood hazard maps show the extent of the Hazard Zone within which there would be a
real risk to life and limb if a breach occurred in the raised flood defences in the immediate
vicinity. The Hazard Zone is taken to be the same as the Rapid Inundation Zone (RIZ)
which is defined as the area in which either or both of the following criteria are met :

Maximum depth of flooding > 0.25m

Maximum velocity of flood water > 0.5 m/s

These criteria were selected after discussion and agreement with the Environment
Agency.
C.49

The Brief also requires detailed modelling of the flood pathways within the town of Kings
Lynn (including West Lynn), identifying maximum depths and velocities of flood water, and
the duration of flooding. It should be emphasised that it is very likely that at any point the
maximum depth and maximum velocity of flood water will not occur simultaneously.

Faber Maunsell

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007/8 Revision)

C8

C.50

In 2004 Atkins carried out 2D modelling of a breach scenario involving the inflow of tidal
flood water into the Kings Lynn dock area following the failure of the Alexandra Dock
entrance gates (Ref.C3). The resultant flood envelope in Kings Lynn was comparable to
that which occurred in 1978, before the towns present tidal defences had been built. We
have undertaken 2D modelling in an attempt to replicate the Atkins results but our flood
envelope for this scenario was significantly smaller than that obtained by Atkins.
Unfortunately the modellers responsible for the 2004 study are no longer employed by
Atkins and it has not been possible to obtain any detailed information on the methodology,
assumptions or parameters employed in the Atkins model.

C.51

Unlike the methodology used to produce the Strategic Flood Risk (SFR) maps, the Hazard
Map methodology assesses the consequences of a series of breaches in a defence line,
irrespective of whether those defences are soft or hard or whether or not the soft
defence is overtopped. The hazard zone thus determined represents what would occur if
a breach occurred, and makes no assumptions as to the probability of that breach
occurring. It is therefore possible for a location in a Category 1 flood risk area to be a
hazard zone and, conversely, for a location in a flood risk Category 3 area not to be in a
hazard zone.