Chapter 3 - Level 1 Assessment - Inland Towns and Villages

Chapter 3
Level 1 Assessment
Inland Towns and Villages
3.1
The following section shows the extent of flood risk in the key inland
settlements identified in the Local Plan settlement pattern. In the majority of
locations, the assessment is based on the Flood Zone maps produced by the
Environment Agency (Feb 2012). There are some settlements in the District
where both the Flood Zone Maps and the Hazard Mapping information are
relevant and both sets of data are used as part of the assessment.
3.2
In addition, the maps show the locations where flooding from other sources
has occurred in the past (areas shown with a triangle).
3.3
The maps show where there are particular issues relative to the towns, large
and medium villages as identified in the Local Plan, which may affect their
capacity to accommodate and the location of any future development. There is
an assessment of the areas of flooding and the associated issues for each
settlement accompanying the maps.
3.4
The maps in this document are indicative only and any assessment of flood
risk in the named settlements or elsewhere, in the smaller villages and open
countryside should be based on the latest Flood Zone information provided by
the Environment Agency http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
3.5
The overall policy approach for the towns and other settlements outside of the
coastal flood risk area should be based on the following.
3.6
In the areas identified, as being at risk of fluvial flooding (Flood Zones 2 and
3), the policy of the Council will seek to avoid development that is not
essential to that location in terms of its contribution to the sustainability of the
settlement. Where development is considered appropriate in Flood Zones 2
and 3 the Council should use a sequential approach to the location of
development to minimise risk.
3.7
In accordance with the NPPF, all applications for new development in Flood
Zones 2 and 3 should be accompanied by site specific Flood Risk Assessments.
In flood zone 1 an FRA will be required for sites of 1 hectare or more, and in
each of these cases they should address the policy aim of ‘seeking
opportunities to reduce overall flood risk’ through appropriate measures for
each zone as set out in the NPPF Technical Guidance. In locations where the
SFRA indicates there may be a risk of flooding from other sources developers
will also be required to show that these have been investigated as part of their
broader site assessment.
3.8
The Flood Zone Map show the main threat of flooding to Alford originates from
the Wold Grift Drain. The Drain flows from north to east through the centre of
the settlement where it has the potential to impact on a number of properties
either side of its route. To the east of the town the flood zone widens and is
likely to constrain development in that area.
3.9
There is evidence of flooding from other sources in the residential area(s) to
the west of the town, and the potential for any impact on these areas from
new development will need to be assessed.
3.10
There is no indication that access to the town is likely to be compromised in
the event of flooding.
3.11
The core area of Alvingham is outside the area at risk of flooding which
emanates from the Louth Canal that runs to the south of the village.
3.12
There is limited evidence of flooding from other sources in the village.
3.13
Access to the village is unlikely to be compromised in the event of flooding.
.
Baumber
3.14
There is no identified risk of flooding in Baumber and there is no record of
recent flooding from other sources.
3.15
The main area at risk of flooding around Bilsby is to the north and west of the
village. However, most of the village has developed on higher land and as a
consequence is unlikely to be affected by fluvial issues from that source.
3.16
In addition to the risk of flooding to the north and west of the village the 2006
SFRA identifies a possible threat from the network of drains to the south of
the village and, any development proposals will require an assessment of any
potential issues this may raise.
3.17
In addition, there is evidence of flooding from other sources and any
development will be required to consider this.
.
3.17
The Flood Zone Maps show that the area at risk of flooding in Binbrook is
limited to a small area of the village immediately adjacent the drains which
carry water north towards Waithe Beck.
3.18
There is no record of historical events in the area.
3.19
There are no access /egress issues identified for the village.
3.20
Part of the local drainage network that feeds into the Catchwater Drain (south
of Bucknall) runs to the east of the village between the core area and the
Primary School, is identified as a potential flood risk. As the map indicates it is
unlikely to constrain development in the village.
3.21
There is no record of recent flooding from other sources.
3.22
Access to the village should not be an issue in the event of flooding.
3.23
As the map indicates Burgh le Marsh lies at the limit of the Flood Hazard Areas
and properties at the eastern edge of the village are within the areas identified
as being of ‘Danger for Some’ and, where there is a ‘Low Hazard’.
3.24
There is no evidence of localised (historic) flooding except to the east of the
village away from any potential growth areas.
3.25
Access to the village is provided to the west via the old A158.
3.26
The map for Coningsby shows the critical area affected by flood risk is
alongside and predominantly to the north and west of the town. However, the
2006 SFRA indicates that the possible extent of flooding would be greater and
affect more properties between the river and the High Street.
3.27
This will constrain the opportunities for development to the north (in
Tattershall Parish), and west where the sand and gravel extraction pits form
part of the flood risk area.
3.28
The earlier SFRA also identifies a potential risk of flooding from a series of
drains in the south east of the town and recommends that any development in
that area will need to be accompanied by an independent Flood Risk
Assessment.
3.29
There are no records of historical flooding identified in Coningsby.
3.30
Access to Coningsby is identified as a potential issue however, as the map
shows this relates to a limited area of the High Street.
3.31
Flood risk in Covenham comes from the Poulton Drain that cuts across the
centre of the built up area and extends towards Cold Harbour Lane and affects
a small area of the village.
3.32
Whilst fluvial risk is not seen as a significant threat in the Covenhams, as the
map shows there is a history of flooding from other sources and any new
development will need to be assessed in the context of past events as part of
specific FRA’s.
3.33
Access to the village will not be significantly affected by flooding.
Donington on Bain
3.34
Donington on Bain lies outside of the identified flood zone which follows the
line of the river, running from north to south and located to the west of the
village. There is no record of flooding from other sources locally.
East Barkwith
3.35
There is no risk of fluvial flooding identified at East Barkwith and no record of
flooding from other sources.
East Keal
3.36
There is no identified flood risk at East Keal.
East Kirkby
3.37
There is no identified flood risk at East Kirkby.
3.38
The areas at risk of flooding at Eastville and New Leake from tidal are clearly
defined and exclude significant parts of the villages.
3.39
However, the villages lie at the centre of the Fens, are surrounded by a
network of drains and smaller watercourses and are also identified as being
within Flood Zone 3. The flood zone maps do not distinguish between the
fluvial and tidal threat and although the tidal threat can be established the risk
from fluvial flooding will need to be assessed independently to establish the
level of protection afforded by the local drainage board drains.
3.40
Access to the village should not be impeded in the event of flooding from tidal
events.
3.41
There is no identified fluvial flood risk at Fotherby. Flooding from other
sources will need to be considered should any proposals be forthcoming to the
north and east of the village core.
3.42
The Flood Hazard Maps indicate that despite much of the area surrounding
Friskney being at risk of flooding in the event of breaching of the coastal
defences, there is no perceived risk to the core of the village and surrounding
areas.
3.43
There is an extensive drainage network around the village and, as a
consequence any development will require preparation of a detailed FRA to
consider any potential issues arising.
3.44
There are no records of flooding from other sources associated with the 2007
high rainfall event within the village.
3.45
Based upon the Hazard Map data, access to the village would not be
compromised in the event of flooding.
3.46
The Flood Hazard zones encroach on the peripheral parts of Fulstow, to the
north and east and will constrain development in those locations.
3.47
There is evidence of flooding from other sources and an assessment of risk
from other sources, including the local drainage system will be required.
3.48
Access to the village would not be compromised in the event of flooding.
3.49
Significant areas of Grainthorpe and the loose collection of properties that
form part of the wider settlement lie within the Danger for Most area as
defined by the Hazard Maps and further development in these areas should
not be supported.
3.50
The maps show that there is an area of little or no risk to the north of the core
area of the village where the potential for development may exist subject to
more detailed assessment of local conditions including risk from local
watercourses.
3.51
There is no identified risk of fluvial or tidal flooding in the defined areas of
Grimoldby and Manby.
3.52
However, as the map shows there is historical evidence of flooding from other
sources associated with the floods of 2007. Accordingly, there remains a need
for any future development to be accompanied by an FRA, which assesses the
potential for flooding from other sources.
Hagworthingham
3.53
There is no identified flood risk at Hagworthingham from fluvial sources and
no record of flooding from other sources.
3.54
Fluvial flooding is not identified as an issue at Halton Holgate.
3.55
As indicated flooding from other sources has occurred in two areas and any
proposals will need to take account of this as a potential issues locally.
3.56
Large parts of Hogsthorpe lie within areas identified as being at significant risk
of flooding as a result of a tidal event and this will severely constrain the
potential for future development in the village.
3.57
The Hazard maps show that whilst there may be some potential for
development to the north-west of the village any development will require a
more detailed assessment of local conditions.
3.58
3.59
There is limited evidence of flooding from other sources locally.
In the event of a tidal event, all access to the village is expected to be
impeded and the consequences of this need to be addressed.
3.60
As the map indicates there is no perceived risk of fluvial flood at Holton le Clay
and only limited evidence of flooding from other sources. Individual
developments will require FRA’s to assess the potential for surface water
flooding and the impact of additional development on existing drainage
systems.
3.61
As the map shows, flood risk through the centre of Horncastle follows the line
of the Bain and Waring rivers and affects a number of the properties that lie in
close proximity. The majority of recent development occupies higher ground
away from the river basins and has avoided past events linked to overtopping
of the defences.
3.62
The extent of the flood risk area was re-modelled and along the line of the
Bain (north-south) shows potential flooding covering a wider swathe in the
centre of the town.
3.63
Whilst there are significant areas alongside the Bain and the Waring where
development should be constrained to avoid future risk, the map also shows
potential locations where further development might be considered.
3.64
There is evidence of flooding from other sources which indicates that these
have occurred within the identified flood zones.
3.65
A more detailed study of flood risk is being undertaken to prevent future
flooding in the town, by a partnership between the EA, the District and County
Councils.
3.66
The flood zone maps indicate that access to the town should not be
compromised in the event of flooding.
Hundleby
3.67
There is no identified flood risk at Hundleby and no record of flooding from
other sources.
3.68
Huttoft is in a unique position. Despite its location close to the sea and within
the broader coastal zone, the topography of the land affords it protection from
the predicted effects of tidal flooding.
3.69
However, a consequence of flooding would be to cut road access to the
village and the consequences of such an event will need to be considered.
3.70
There is limited evidence of flooding from other sources within the village core
3.71
Kirkby on Bain has developed alongside the river whose name it takes.
Significant parts of the village are at risk of flooding from the river and this
will constrain opportunities for development locally.
3.72
There is evidence of flooding from other sources and any development in
those areas will also need to assess what impact this may have.
3.73
It is not envisaged that access to the village will be compromised by flood
events.
3.74
Legbourne lies at the headwaters of the Long Eau, a non-main river at this
point which forms part of the Saltfleet Haven watercourse in its lower reaches.
Flood risk in the village is likely to arise as a consequence of flooding from the
drains which comprise the headwaters (SFRA 2006).
3.75
In all cases FRA’s will be required to inform individual applications and they
should address more localised land drainage and surface water issues
including the need to further examine extent and levels of flood water.
3.76
The main risk of flooding in Louth is identified as being fluvial and emanating
from the River Lud. However, as the assessment map shows, in addition to
the problems associated with the R. Lud, which is linked to surface water runoff in the event of flash flooding and the surrounding topography.
3.77
In addition to fluvial events, there is also evidence of surface water issues
linked to the R. Lud and Stewton Beck, and a number of other areas around
the town.
3.78
Following the floods of 2007 the Council, along with the EA, the County and
Town Council are working together to bring forward a flood storage scheme
which is intended to alleviate problems related to the R.Lud. In addition
recent works have been undertaken to improve problems associated with the
Stewton Beck including run-off from surrounding fields which is intended to
mitigate against localised problems encountered in the past.
3.79
The extent of development around the R.Lud means there are limited
opportunities for significant new proposals and major new developments are
likely to be located on the periphery of the town in areas of little or no risk as
identified by the flood zone maps.
3.80
Notwithstanding this detailed flood, risk assessments will be required to
address surface water issues in all locations and should be appropriate to the
scale of development and include an assessment of the capacity of existing
drainage networks.
3.81
The flood zone maps show that access to the town should not be compromised
in the event of flooding.
3.82
The upper reaches of the River Bain are found at Ludford and are considered
to pose a flood risk to a small area in the south eastern segment of the
village. The remainder of Ludford is unaffected by flood zones.
3.83
There is no record of flooding from other sources in Ludford.
3.84
Access to the village is not at risk.
Mareham le Fen
3.85
Mareham le Fen lies outside the area of flood risk as defined by the Flood
Zone maps. To the south of the village, on the part of Fen Lane that is beyond
the limits of development is at risk but this should not compromise
development elsewhere in the village.
3.86
Maltby le Marsh lies at the edge of the Flood Hazard Zone that will constrain
development opportunities to the north of the village. In contrast the flood
zone maps indicate the risk of flooding from a tidal event would extend over a
greater area and any proposals will need to investigate the implications of this
in more detail.
3.87
Flooding from other sources has been recorded in a number of locations and
the potential threat from the local drainage network will also require further
assessment to establish the risk to development.
3.88 It is not expected that access to the village would be compromised by a flood
event.
3.89
A large proportion of Marshchapel lies within the Danger for Most and
Danger for Some areas as defined by the Flood Hazard maps.
3.90
There is also a potential threat from the many small drains in the vicinity that
will require assessment through more detailed FRA’s.
3.91
There is a potential access problem likely to arise in the event of either tidal or
fluvial flooding and there is a need to consider the implications of this.
3.92
Part of the village is shown as partly out of the flood hazard zones and in the
danger to some and low hazard areas, there may be development potential in
these areas, though it will need to be accompanied by an FRA to address
issues arising from the localised land drainage and surface water issues.
3.93
Over and above this any development required to maintain the sustainability
of the settlement will need to assess the potential of sites within the Danger
for Most area.
3.94
Mumby lies at the edge of the area identified by the EA Hazard Maps as being
at risk from tidal flooding. As a consequence, any future development should
be guided to the north western sections of the village.
3.95
There is limited evidence of flooding from other sources in Mumby; this will
need to be taken into account by site specific FRA’s.
3.96
Access to the village from Alford would not be compromised in the event of
flooding.
3.97
New Bolingbroke lies in Flood Zone 3 where the EA acknowledge that there is
no risk from tidal flooding but where there is a residual risk from failure of the
West Fen Catchwater drain some 2.5km distant, or the surrounding network
of drains and sewers maintained by the Witham 4th IDB. As a consequence it
is recommended that individual applications will require flood risk assessments
to show that the exceptions test can be satisfied and no allocations are made
for the village.
3.98
There is no record of flooding from other sources recorded in New
Bolingbroke.
3.99
There is insufficient data available to assess the impact on access to the
village in the event of re
3.100 New York is shown as being at the edge of the fluvial/tidal flood area indicated
on the flood zone maps, but is outside the flood hazard zone areas. There is
little risk associated with the Catchwater Drain to the north of the village
identified on the flood zone maps.
3.101 Although the Flood Zone maps should be used as the starting point for the
assessment of risk locally the uncertainty over the origin and extent of any
flooding to the south of the village should be clarified directly with the EA and
in discussion with the Internal Drainage Board who maintain a network of
smaller drains locally.
3.102 There is no record of flooding from other sources in New York.
3.103 In the event of flooding access to the village may be affected.
3.104 As the map shows there is no identified flood risk at North Thoresby.
3.105 Flooding from other sources has occurred in a central location in the village, it
is not considered that this will constitute a major issue but may require
investigation as part of any future development.
3.106 The flood zone and hazard mapping indicate that Orby village is unaffected by
flood risk.
3.107 Flooding from other sources has been recorded at the southern edge of the
village on Burgh Road and is not seen as an issue locally.
3.108 Access to the village is unlikely to be a problem in the event of flooding.
3.109 The main risk of flooding in Partney comes from the small drain that flows
east to west across the north of the village and then southwards, on the west
of the village, feeding into the River Lymn. Any development should be
located outside of the flood zone.
3.110 There is some evidence of flooding from other sources where the drain crosses
the old main road and individual proposals will need to investigate potential
risk.
3.111 It is anticipated that access to the village will not be constrained in the event
of flooding.
3.112 Scamblesby lies on the valley floor to the south of the minor watercourse that
runs westwards to join the R. Bain beyond Goulceby. The area at risk is
identified as a band either side of the watercourse and should not constitute a
significant constraint to any development elsewhere in the village.
3.113 A number of locations have reported flooding form other sources and these
may require further investigation.
3.114 It is unlikely that access will be compromised by flood events.
South Reston
3.115 There is no flood risk at South Reston and no recent floods from other sources
recorded.
3.116 There is no flood risk identified at Spilsby and no recent evidence of flooding
from other sources.
.
3.117 Sibsey lies between the Stonebridge Drain (on the west) and Hobhole to the
east. The Flood Zone maps for Sibsey identifies a significant part of the
village, most notably off Station Road/ Amos Way (on the east side) as at risk
from flooding. However, as this is based upon tidal modelling it is considered
that the more detailed Hazard Mapping should be used to interpret conditions
locally.
3.118 Groundwater and local drainage issues will need to be addressed as part of
site specific FRA’s.
3.119 To the west of the village the area at risk of fluvial flooding is smaller affecting
the western end of Frithville Road and similarly, in the satellite development
along Littlemoor Road to the north west away of the main part of the village.
3.120 The threat of tidal flooding indicated by the Hazard Maps is limited to that
area at the western end of Frithville Road and not envisaged as a constraint
on development for Sibsey.
3.121 In the event of flooding access to the village using the A16 is not
compromised.
3.122 Flood zone 3 affects the eastern and southern parts of Stickney along Fen
Lane where the main threat of flooding comes from the West Fen Drain, and
will act as a constraint future development.
3.123 Records show flooding from other sources is limited.
3.124 Access to Stickney should not be an issue in the event of flooding.
3.125
3.126 The primary risk of flooding at Stickney comes from the East Fen and West
Fen Catchwater Drains that run north to south either side of the village giving
the distinctive ‘envelope’ around the settlement, and reflecting its historical
development on higher ground. This would indicate that the scale of
development likely to be proposed for the village could be accommodated
readily either in or alongside the core of the settlement but not along the east
and western spurs. Hall and Horbling Lanes.
3.127 There is no evidence of significant flooding from other sources in the village,
however because there is a network of drains serving the village independent
FRA’s will be required to assess groundwater and local drainage issues.
3.128 In the event of an extreme event access to the village would be available
along the main road from the north.
3.129 A significant part of Tattershall is identified as being at risk from flooding
according to the Flood Zone maps. This indicates a significant change to the
earlier flood zone maps and is more in line with the findings of the SFRA
(2006), which identifies a particular risk of flooding from drains to the north
west of the village.
3.130 Consequently, the potential for any development in the village is limited to
small areas to the north and west and will require site specific flood risk
assessment.
3.131 There is no record of localised flooding from other events in Tattershall.
3.132 The flood zone maps indicate that there may be access issues in the wake of
an extreme flood event.
3.133 Although the River Lymm has its issue close to Tetford and flows through the
southern segment of the village it constitutes a minor risk to development
locally. There are records of flooding from other sources close to the flood
zone that would warrant further investigation should development be
considered.
3.134 There is a small area at risk beyond the confines of and to the north of the
village associated with Rainbeck.
3.135 Access to the village is not an issue.
3.136 Tetney lies at the western edge of the area identified as being at risk from
tidal flooding and development at the eastern edge on Church Lane lies in the
area likely to be affected. Future development should be located away from
this area to satisfy the sequential approach.
3.137 The 2005 SFRA also indicates that there is risk of fluvial flooding from the
Tetney Drain that flows west to east to the south of the settlement, and notes
that the defences do not meet EA guidelines. That risk is also likely to impact
on properties in the tidal risk areas in the Church Road area.
Toynton All Saints
3.138 There is no flood risk identified at Toynton All Saints.
3.139 Wainfleet All Saints lies entirely within Flood Zone 3 and, along the A52 it
abuts the Flood Hazard Areas reflecting its relationship to the Steeping River
and the coast. As a consequence the potential for further development in the
village is severely constrained and, should instead be addressed by provision
in Wainfleet St Mary immediately to the north.
3.140 There is limited evidence of flooding from other sources locally.
3.141 Access to and from the village would be lost in the event of flooding.
3.142 The Flood Hazard maps indicate that Wainfleet lies to the north and west of
the area at threat from tidal flooding. They show that in the event there would
be a small area of Wainfleet St Mary, where it abuts the A52, under threat.
3.143 In addition Wainfleet’s location, between the Steeping River and the Wainfleet
Relief Channel is considered a risk by the 2006 SFRA which identifies
weaknesses in the embankment defences of both. In particular it identifies
problems along the Steeping River in the vicinity of the Church.
3.144 Subject to works undertaken to improve the defences through Wainfleet then
the capacity of the village to accommodate further development in the future
is compromised.
3.145 Willoughby lies outside the area of Flood Risk as defined by the Flood Zone
Maps. There is some evidence of flooding from other sources that will need to
be assessed as part of any development proposals.
3.146 Withern lies outside of the area identified as being at risk of fluvial flooding
and flooding from other sources is only recorded at the eastern end of the
main road.
3.147 Access to Louth would be constrained in the event of a flood event affecting
the Great Eau to the north of the village.
3.72
The flood risk in Woodhall Spa comes from the fluvial threat associated with
the River Witham at the western edge of the village. Most of the village stands
on higher ground and, therefore only a small area to the east of the
crossroads, in the centre of the village, is at threat of flooding.
3.73
This is the area alongside the ‘Sewer’, which runs east to west along the
southern edge of existing development. Detailed studies will be required to
examine the risk from the Sewer to supplement the most recent information
produced by the Environment Agency.
3.74
As the Woodhall Spa (west) map shows the threat from the R.Witham is
deflected around the bulk of the town and leaves significant potential growth
areas abutting the village for consideration as future development sites. In
these areas FRA’s will be required to assess the potential surface water issues
arising from individual proposals.
3.75
As the Map shows fluvial flooding is not identified as a potential issue for
Wragby as the nearest waterway flows to the south east of the village.
3.76
There is some evidence from 2007 of surface water flooding on the Louth and
Horncastle Roads and any development in these areas will need to assess local
drainage capacity in more detail to avoid compounding any problems.