taylor wimpey, manchester flood risk assessment€¦ · development will not increase the risk of...

Taylor Wimpey, Manchester

Flood Risk Assessment

Rossendale Hospital Rossendale

Ironside Farrar Limited 3 Worsley Court

High Street Worsley

Manchester M28 3NJ

3841/SRG

February 2011

Rossendale Hospital File Ref: 3841/SRGRossendale

Ironside Farrar Limited Page 1 February 2011

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Site Description

3. Forms of Flooding

4. Development and Drainage

5. Conclusions

6. Recommendations

APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Location

Appendix B Site Plan

Appendix C Site and Aerial Photographs

Appendix D Topographical Survey

Appendix E Environment Agency Flood Risk Map Consultation with EA and Rossendale BC

Appendix F Sewer Records and Historical Drainage Plans Existing Drainage Schematic Plan

Appendix G Proposed Development and Drainage

Appendix H Hydraulic Calculations



FORMER ROSSENDALE HOSPITALHASLINGDEN ROAD

ROSSENDALE

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

1.0 Introduction

Taylor Wimpey Developments (Manchester) intend to undertake a development of approximately 142no. detached and semi-detached houses on the site of the former Rossendale Hospital situated off Haslingden Road, Rossendale. The site consists of two portions, the main hospital site and a small isolated site at the junction of Union Road and Haslingden Road that was previously occupied by a clinic and car park.

The site is situated within Flood Zone 1; this zone comprises land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or sea flooding in any one year (<0.1%). The site is greater than 1ha in area and a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25: Planning and Flood Risk (PPS25) is required to ensure the development is undertaken in a safe manner and to ensure the development will not increase the risk of flooding to other areas. The Flood Risk Assessment will support a Planning application for the site thatwill be submitted in due course by Taylor Wimpey Developments.

2.0 Site Description

The main site area is approximately 4.1ha in total and the former clinic site is approximately 0.16ha. Access to the main site is gained via an access from Union Road to the east of the site and a secondary access from Haslingden Road to the west. The clinic site is accessed directly from Union Road. On the main site area all of the buildings remain largely intact but the clinic site has been cleared. The site is located mid-way between Haslingden and Rawtenstall centres, approximately 1.5km from each, thesite location and site plan are included in Appendices A and B.

The nature of the site is illustrated by the aerial and site photographs that are included in Appendix C. It can be seen from these that the main site area is heavily developed with a wide range of existing hospital buildings largely constructed of stone and dating from prior to 1911. There are also various retaining walls throughout the site and very significant changes in level, reference should be made to the Topographical survey in Appendix D.

Generally, the site falls in a south easterly direction towards Haslingden Road. Levels along the northern boundary of the site vary only slightly



from 234.00m in the south west to 235.00m in the north east but from the northern boundary to the southern boundary the levels fall from a maximum of 235.00m to between 217.50m and 222.00m. Beyond the southern boundary, the levels continue to fall to Haslingden Road where the levels vary from 198.00m to 193.00m. The land to the north of the site continues to rise and is generally open moorland but the area between the site and Haslingden Road is heavily wooded; to the west there is some residential development in adjacent buildings and to the east there is residential development on Union Road. The site access from Union Road rises from approximately 212.00m to 217.00m at the edge of the main site; the secondary access rises from 202.00 at Haslingden Road to approximately 225.00m at the main site. The land to the north of the site is very wet and there are several informal watercourses that run to the back of the freestanding and retaining walls that form this boundary.

As detailed previously, the former clinic site is located close to the junction of Haslingden Road and Union Road and is at levels between 195.00m and 197.50m. This area is surrounded by woodland to the north, south and west; the site is accessed directly from Union Road to the east.

3.0 Forms of Flooding

Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS 25) requires all forms of flooding to be considered as detailed in Annex C: Forms of Flooding.

3.1 Flooding from Rivers

The Environment Agency Flood Risk map is included as Appendix E.

It can be seen from the map that the site is located in Flood Zone 1 with a chance of flooding of less than 0.1% (or 1 in 1000). The nearest watercourse to the site is the unnamed tributary located some 80m to the south of Haslingden Road, to which a part of the site is presently drained; this tributary eventually outfalls to the River Irwell some 500m to the south of Haslingden Road.

It is considered unlikely the site will be at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea.

3.2 Flooding from the Sea

This is covered in Section 3.1 above.



3.3 Flooding from Land

Intense rainfall, often of short duration, that is unable to soak into the ground or enter drainage systems can run quickly off land and result in local flooding.

As described above, the land to the north of the site rises steeply and is wet with informal watercourses crossing it. Run-off from this land onto the site has the potential to cause flooding of the site if it is not accounted for in the design of the site. It is already known (see below) that there are existing drains crossing the site that convey land drainage from this raised area through the site and eventually to watercourses. These drains will be retained within the development and will be improved to ensure the land drainage can be conveyed in a safe manner; of particular importance will be improvements to the cut-off drain to the northern side of the existing boundary wall that is a retaining wall over part of its length. It must bestressed, there is no evidence on site that flooding of the site has occurred due to run-off from the adjacent land

Some land drainage should also be installed to the clinic area of the site but the potential problems are minor when compared to the main site.

Reference should also be made to section 4 relating to the site drainage.

3.4 Flooding from Groundwater

Reference to the BGS website: www.bgs.ac.uk/britainbeneath indicates the site is not located in a groundwater flooding zone.

The site is therefore not considered to be at risk of flooding from groundwater.

3.5 Flooding from Sewers

The record of Public Sewers has been obtained from United Utilities and is included in Appendix F, together with historical plans of the drainage provided by Rossendale BC and the results of a site survey; undertaken to confirm the historical information.

The sewer records indicate a 225mm diameter foul sewer running from the centre of the main hospital site in a southerly direction to connect with the public sewer in Haslingden Road. The foul sewer continues through the hospital site, through the northern boundary to connect to residential development situated to the north of the Union Road development. In addition to the foul sewer, there is a surface water sewer running parallel that varies in size up to a maximum of 375mm diameter. At the southern



edge of the main hospital site the surface water departs from the line of the foul to run across the wooded area before crossing Haslingden Road to outfall at the watercourse to the south of Haslingden Road. At the outfall, the surface water is indicated as being 300mm diameter.

Historical drainage records were provided following consultation with Rossendale BC that represents three differently aged drainage records. These have been reproduced in Appendix F2 and more accurate details of the site drainage are detailed on these records. Although the foul drainage is also shown in more detail, this report concentrates on the surface water to determine the outfall arrangements of the site to the watercourse, or elsewhere. The first point of interest is the outfall from the main site area referred to on the public sewer records. One of the drainage records indicates the outfall to be a 375mm diameter pipe running at a gradient of 1 in 6 to the open watercourse; the surface water is also shown running into the field to the north of the site, this could represent the connection of land drainage at this point. One of the other records dates from approximately 1911 and details the drainage to the original hospital building, later to become the Maternity unit. These records confirm the outfalls of the surface water and foul as the existing watercourse and the sewer in Haslingden Road respectively.

The final set of records details the drainage arrangements for the Psychiatric unit in addition to the Maternity unit. The records indicate the Psychiatric buildings to be served by two surface water outfalls, one to the north indicated as connecting to the River Irwell and one to the south indicated as connecting to the Mill Lodge. There are no pipe sizes or manhole depths indicated on this plan.

Using the above, together with the topographical survey, a site inspection was undertaken to confirm the historic records; the results of the inspection are recorded on Appendix F3. The following summarises the main points: -

� The outfall to the watercourse from the maternity unit is a 375mm diameter pipe.(Identified as Outfall 2)

� Manholes around the maternity unit are shared manholes that can result in foul entering the surface water and vice versa.

� Along the main access from Union Road there is a dedicated highway drainage pipe that runs into Union Road but the outfall location has not been determined.(Identified as Outfall 1)

� The drain through the maternity unit appears to collect land drainage to the north of the boundary wall as water could be heard in the manhole in the field.

� The two outfalls from the psychiatric block are present and appear to be 225mm in diameter. At least one of these pipes extends to the



northern boundary to collect land drainage from outwith the site.(Identified as Outfalls 3 and 4)

� The extreme southerly connection (Outfall 4) was proved by dye testing to be connected to the Mill Lodge on the south side of Haslingden Road.

� No manholes were identified in the secondary access from

It is understood there have been no flooding incidents on the site due to the existing drains, all drains appear to have very favourable gradients and will therefore have increased capacities. The total impermeable area through all outfalls is approximately 2.74ha and the development drainage will endeavour to reduce the effect of the run-off from the developed site to below the equivalent run-off from this impermeable area.

3.6 Flooding from Reservoirs, Canals and Other Artificial Sources

There is a small service reservoir situated high above the northern boundary of the site but a site visit has confirmed it is dry and not in use atpresent. Artificial sources do not, therefore represent a flood risk to the site.

4.0 Development and Drainage

The principle of the development drainage is not to increase flows to the existing watercourse, thereby reducing the risk of flooding to areas outsidethe site. National planning policy for the prevention of water pollution is set out in Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23) Planning and Pollution Control (ODPM, 1994). PPS 23 is a material consideration for proposed planning applications and provides guidance on the location of, and appropriateness of certain “polluting” developments, so as to prevent pollution and ensure that the environment and human health is protected. In particular, PPS 23 Annex 1 encourages the use where appropriate of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) by developers. SUDS are drainage measures but can help to attenuate pollutants contained in surface runoff reducing the impact of diffuse pollution on receiving watercourses. Reference should also be made to the RossendaleBorough Council Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Scott Wilson in May 2009. The use of SUDS is recommended in this document which states that SUDS should be investigated according to local geology.

The use of SUDS is encouraged wherever practical in the drainage network but the extent of their use will be dictated to a degree by the attitude of United Utilities towards the adoption of such facilities.



At the very least, the site drainage will seek to reduce the overall peak rate of run-off from the site using SUDS or other attenuation measures. It is intended the drainage layout for the development will feature: -

� The existing highway drain to the main access from Union Road will be used to drain that portion of the site access road.(Outfall 1)

� As it is the largest and most reliable outfall, it is recommended all of the site drainage will be directed to Outfall 2 and will be attenuated to ensure the overall run-off rate is reduced.

� The former clinic area will continue to drain to the existing outfalls without attenuation, the impermeable area of the development is 0.072ha compared to 0.12ha for the existing site.

Hydraulic calculations have been undertaken on the existing surface water outfalls and the results are presented below, detailed calculations are included in Appendix H: -

OutfallNumber

1year event (l/s)

30 year event (l/s)

100 year event (l/s)

OF1 32.4 38.1 38.2OF2 82.3 215.4 277.8OF3 72.2 149.2 153.7OF4 56.0 127.7 139.5Total 242.9 530.4 609.2

The development layout indicated in Appendix G, including the attenuation tank with an approximate volume of 173.18m3 provides a reduced run-off from the site. The hydraulic calculations included in Appendix H indicate the proposed flows from the development and the results are summarised below: -

OutfallLocation

1year event (l/s)

30 year event (l/s)

100 year event (l/s)

OF1 32.4 38.1 38.2OF2 154.7 196.7 277.8Total 187.1 234.8 316

% reduction on existing 22 55 48

There is some surface flooding on the site from the proposed drainage system in the 100year return period event but this can be retained on site in the open space area. At the present time an underground attenuation tank is indicated but subject to agreement with United Utilities an open attenuation basin could be incorporated within the open space.



6.0 Conclusions

� The site is located within Flood Zone 1 with a low probability of flooding.

� Run-off from adjacent, higher land represents a threat to the site but can be reduced by the improvement of land drainage at the boundary and the retention of the existing drainage outfalls.

� The development can be undertaken in a manner that will reduce the overall run-off by 48% and therefore limit the risk of flooding elsewhere.

� SUDS facilities will be included within the drainage network where practical.

7.0 Recommendations

� SUDS facilities should be incorporated in the drainage network where possible and should be designed in accordance with The SUDS Manual CIRIA C697. Discussions should also take place with United Utilities to ensure SUDS measures can be adopted under a Section 104 Agreement.

� All existing drainage outfalls should be inspected using CCTV survey to ensure they are structurally sound, all defects should be rectified.

� Flows from the site will be limited to no greater than the existing run-off; the proposed drainage will include an allowance for future climate change. The appropriate volume of storage and drainage arrangement is indicated in Appendix G.

� The external levels shall be designed to ensure overland flood routes exist through the development for use in exceptional circumstances.

APPENDIX A

Site Location

APPENDIX B

Existing Site Plan

APPENDIX C

Site Photos&

Aerial Photo

12 4

3

5

86

7

9

1211

10

13 151614

1718 20

19

2122 24

23

APPENDIX D

Topographical Survey

APPENDIX E

Environment AgencyFlood Risk Map

Consultation with EA andRossendale BC

101021_EA_RuckledgeFrom: Ruckledge, John [[email protected]]Sent: 21 October 2010 09:04To: Simon GoughCc: Geoff BrownSubject: RE: Rossendale Hospital, Haslingden Road Rossendale (3841)

Simon,

As in my earlier e.mail, at this stage I would not agree to any discharge figure without supporting information on the contributing drainage systems to the individual outlets. As Geoff's information shows, there seems to be more than one receptor for the existing run-off so directing all future run-off to the culvert could increase risk.

Whatever existing rates are determined for individual storm events, I would suggest the proposed rate is reduced to show a reduction in risk elsewhere.

John Ruckledge| Development & Flood Risk Team East |Environment Agency |? 01925 543410 | Fax ? 01925 852260 | ? Appleton House, 430 Birchwood Boulevard, Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 7WD

From: Geoff Brown [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 20 October 2010 15:08 To: Simon Gough Cc: Ruckledge, John Subject: RE: Rossendale Hospital, Haslingden Road Rossendale (3841)Simon

I’ll let the EA answer that one!!! The old drainage plans show different outfalls for different parts of the whole site. This should be taken into consideration.

For new planning applications the developer is encouraged to implement Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) techniques. SUDS are effective in reducing the impact of surface water discharges. The following condition would be applied to an application:-

CONDITION: Development shall not begin until drainage details, incorporating sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed/occupied.

REASON: To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.

From April 2012 it is likely that the right to connect to a surface water sewer will be withdrawn and there will be a requirement from the lead local flood authority (Lancashire County Council),in conjunction with the Planning Authority, for a sustainable drainage system to be approved.

CCTV of the existing culverted watercourse will be required if flow will be connected to it. The responsibility for the culvert lies with the owner of the land above it so the integrity of the culvert must be checked.

I hope this will assist in your feasibility study.

Regards

From: Simon Gough [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 20 October 2010 09:20 To: Geoff Brown Subject: RE: Rossendale Hospital, Haslingden Road Rossendale (3841)

Geoff, nice to hear from you and thanks for those, could be very useful if things progress.

Page 1

101021_EA_RuckledgeDoes the proposal to limit flows to the existing 1in2year flows (approximately 350l/s) sound a reasonable approach?

Regards

Simon Gough | Director | Ironside Farrar | 3 Worsley Court | Worsley | Manchester |M28 3NJ |Tel: 0161 703 8801 | Fax: 0161 703 8279 | Web:ironsidefarrar.com

From: Geoff Brown [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 19 October 2010 09:07 To: Simon Gough Subject: RE: Rossendale Hospital, Haslingden Road Rossendale (3841)

Hello Simon

Old plans attached that may help.

Regards

From: Simon Gough [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 18 October 2010 12:06 To: Ruckledge, John Cc: [email protected]; Geoff Brown Subject: RE: Rossendale Hospital, Haslingden Road Rossendale (3841)

John, that is fine for now.

I had thought that we would calculate the 2year run-off from the existing site and limit the 100year flow from the developed site to this rate.I think this will give us broadly the sort of figures you are stating.

Although the sewer records indicate the outfall as a 300mm dia. pipe a site visit would suggest the pipe is larger, possibly 375mm dia.The surface water is not an adopted sewer it is a watercourse.

Thank you for your prompt response.

Simon Gough | Director | Ironside Farrar | 3 Worsley Court | Worsley | Manchester |M28 3NJ |Tel: 0161 703 8801 | Fax: 0161 703 8279 | Web:ironsidefarrar.com

From: Ruckledge, John [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 18 October 2010 11:06 To: Simon Gough Cc: [email protected]; Geoff Brown Subject: RE: Rossendale Hospital, Haslingden Road Rossendale (3841)

Simon,

The following would apply to any discharge to the culvert - assuming it is not a adopted sewer.

We would expect any flood risk assessment for the redevelopment to determine existing and proposed run-off rates. A pre and post impermeable area assessment would not be sufficient to achieve this as the old drainage system of the hospital may not be capable of conveying the flows generated by this method. Some of the run-off may also be directed to receptors other than the culvert and this should be confirmed.

The capacity of the receiving system should also be considered. I note that the culvert downstream of Haslingden Road reduces to 300mm diameter but also has a 300mm connection from the road drainage. I have no knowledge of any flooding problems associated with this culvert but Rossendale BC may have

Page 2

101021_EA_Ruckledgeinformation on this.

As highlighted in Rossendale BC's SFRA, redevelopment should consider the feasibility/options for sustainable drainage systems to be incorporated. I am not aware that Rossendale BC have policies that state a specific percentage reduction in run-off but their policy EM5 recognises the need for SuDS.

I would recommend that a reduction is shown in line with the key planning objectives of PPS25. Other Councils in the Irwell catchment have proposed 30% reductions in run-off for brownfield sites and 50% in critical drainage areas. It would seem appropriate to adopt a similar approach here as a minimum.

Until some further investigation is carried out, it is not possible to agree a specific rate of discharge.

John Ruckledge| Development & Flood Risk Team East |Environment Agency |? 01925 543410 | Fax ? 01925 852260 | ? Appleton House, 430 Birchwood Boulevard, Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 7WD

From: Simon Gough [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 14 October 2010 13:45 To: Ruckledge, John; [email protected] Subject: Rossendale Hospital, Haslingden Road Rossendale (3841)Click here to report this email as spam.

Gentlemen, we have been commissioned to undertake a drainage feasibility study at the above, the extent of which is highlighted on the attached plan.The intended afteruse is residential and I understand you may have been consulted for the outline planning application.A copy of the sewer records is attached and it is intended the development will connect to the existing infrastructure where possible.I would therefore be grateful if you could jointly confirm, on Monday 18th October 2010 if at all possible, the following information: -* The status of the existing sewers crossing the site (the combined is indicated as public but the status of the surface water is not clear).* The discharge point for foul drainage (either of manholes 7502, 8502 and 8501 on the site).* The discharge point for surface water (the existing 330x500 culvert crossing the site, manhole 8503 or the outfall at 9401).* The rate of discharge for the site. (it is understood the whole of the hospital site is connected to the existing surface water culvert).Your earliest attention to the above would be most appreciated.RegardsSimon Gough | Director | Ironside Farrar | 3 Worsley Court | Worsley | Manchester |M28 3NJ | Tel: 0161 703 8801 | Fax: 0161 703 8279 | Web:ironsidefarrar.com <<ROSSENDALE HOSPITAL - Location Plan.doc>> <<Sewer Records.pdf>>

Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else.

We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it.We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes.

If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. Find out more about the Environment Agency at www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Page 3

APPENDIX F

Sewer RecordsHistorical Drainage Plans &

Existing Drainage Schematic Plan

APPENDIX G

Proposed Development& Drainage

APPENDIX H

Hydraulic Calculations

Existing Network Details for Storm

PN Length(m)

Fall(m)

Slope(1:X)

Area(ha)

T.E.(mins)

k(mm)

HYDSECT

DIA(mm)

1.000 27.586 2.250 12.3 0.000 4.00 0.600 o 1501.001 54.069 1.840 29.4 0.360 0.00 0.600 o 1501.002 35.281 1.250 28.2 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 1501.003 43.379 2.700 16.1 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 1501.004 43.259 2.704 16.0 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 150

PN US/MHName

US/CL(m)

US/IL(m)

USC.Depth(m)

DS/CL(m)

DS/IL(m)

DSC.Depth(m)

Ctrl US/MH(mm)

1.000 1 221.360 220.540 0.670 219.650 218.290 1.210 12001.001 2 219.650 218.290 1.210 218.330 216.450 1.730 12001.002 3 218.330 216.450 1.730 216.880 215.200 1.530 12001.003 4 216.880 215.200 1.530 214.410 212.500 1.760 12001.004 5 214.410 212.500 1.760 211.200 209.796 1.254 1200

Simulation Criteria for Storm

Volumetric Runoff Coeff 0.750 Foul Sewage per hectare (l/s) 0.000PIMP (% impervious) 100 Additional Flow - % of Total Flow 0.000

Areal Reduction Factor 1.000 MADD Factor * 10m³/ha Storage 2.500Hot Start (mins) 0 Inlet Coeffiecient 0.800

Hot Start Level (mm) 0 Run Time (mins) 60Manhole Headloss Coeff (Global) 0.500 Output Interval (mins) 1

Number of Input Hydrographs 0 Number of Storage Structures 0Number of Online Controls 0 Number of Time/Area Diagrams 0Number of Offline Controls 0

Synthetic Rainfall Details

Rainfall Model FSR Profile Type SummerReturn Period (years) 2 Cv (Summer) 0.750

Region England and Wales Cv (Winter) 0.840M5-60 (mm) 19.000 Storm Duration (mins) 30

Ratio R 0.288

Ironside Farrar Ltd3 Worsley CourtHigh Street WorsleyManchesterDate 28.02.11File Existing Outfall ...Micro Drainage

Rossendale HospitalExisting Outfall 1 Hig...Run-OffDesigned By JCMChecked ByNetwork W.12.4.1

Page 1

©1982-2010 Micro Drainage Ltd

1 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank 1) forStorm

Margin for Flood Risk Warning (mm) 300.0 DVD Status OFFAnalysis Timestep Fine Inertia Status OFF

DTS Status ON

Profile(s) Summer and WinterDuration(s) (mins) 15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600,

720, 960, 1440Return Period(s) (years) 1, 30, 100

Climate Change (%) 0, 0, 0

PN StormReturnPeriod

ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.

1.000 120 Winter 1 0%1.001 15 Winter 1 0% 1/15 Winter 30/15 Summer 141.002 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer1.003 15 Winter 1 0%1.004 15 Winter 1 0%

PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)

PipeFlow(l/s) Status

1.000 1 220.540 -0.150 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 218.467 0.027 0.000 1.01 0.0 32.4 SURCHARGED1.002 3 216.570 -0.030 0.000 1.00 0.0 32.4 OK1.003 4 215.297 -0.053 0.000 0.75 0.0 32.4 OK1.004 5 212.597 -0.053 0.000 0.75 0.0 32.4 OK



Page 2


30 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank 1)for Storm


DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.


PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 220.540 -0.150 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 219.659 1.219 9.464 1.22 0.0 39.3 FLOOD1.002 3 217.071 0.471 0.000 1.18 0.0 38.1 SURCHARGED1.003 4 215.309 -0.041 0.000 0.88 0.0 38.1 OK1.004 5 212.609 -0.041 0.000 0.88 0.0 38.1 OK



Page 3




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.


PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 220.540 -0.150 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 219.674 1.234 23.735 1.22 0.0 39.2 FLOOD1.002 3 217.077 0.477 0.000 1.18 0.0 38.2 SURCHARGED1.003 4 215.309 -0.041 0.000 0.88 0.0 38.2 OK1.004 5 212.609 -0.041 0.000 0.88 0.0 38.2 OK



Page 4



PN Length(m)

Fall(m)

Slope(1:X)

Area(ha)

T.E.(mins)

k(mm)

HYDSECT

DIA(mm)

1.000 22.610 2.261 10.0 0.000 4.00 0.600 o 3751.001 62.670 7.300 8.6 0.880 0.00 0.600 o 3751.002 110.813 18.469 6.0 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 375

PN US/MHName

US/CL(m)

US/IL(m)

USC.Depth(m)

DS/CL(m)

DS/IL(m)

DSC.Depth(m)

Ctrl US/MH(mm)

1.000 1 234.000 228.331 5.294 228.570 226.070 2.125 12001.001 2 228.570 226.070 2.125 223.070 218.770 3.925 12001.002 3 223.070 218.770 3.925 207.000 200.301 6.324 1350









Ratio R 0.288

Ironside Farrar Ltd 3 Worsley Court High Street Worsley Manchester Date 28.02.11 File Existing Outfall ... Micro Drainage

Rossendale Hospital Existing Outfall 2 Run-Off Designed By JCM Checked By Network W.12.4.1

Page 1




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.

1.000 120 Winter 1 0%1.001 15 Winter 1 0%1.002 15 Winter 1 0%

PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 228.331 -0.375 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 226.159 -0.286 0.000 0.13 0.0 82.4 OK1.002 3 218.851 -0.294 0.000 0.10 0.0 82.3 OK



Page 2




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.


PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 228.331 -0.375 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 226.220 -0.225 0.000 0.33 0.0 215.5 OK1.002 3 218.904 -0.241 0.000 0.27 0.0 215.4 OK



Page 3




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.


PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 228.331 -0.375 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 226.243 -0.202 0.000 0.43 0.0 278.2 OK1.002 3 218.924 -0.221 0.000 0.35 0.0 277.8 OK



Page 4



PN Length(m)

Fall(m)

Slope(1:X)

Area(ha)

T.E.(mins)

k(mm)

HYDSECT

DIA(mm)

1.000 38.891 0.972 40.0 0.000 4.00 0.600 o 2251.001 115.628 9.440 12.2 0.780 0.00 0.600 o 2251.002 110.000 29.000 3.8 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 225

PN US/MHName

US/CL(m)

US/IL(m)

USC.Depth(m)

DS/CL(m)

DS/IL(m)

DSC.Depth(m)

Ctrl US/MH(mm)

1.000 1 235.000 233.942 0.833 234.100 232.970 0.905 12001.001 2 234.100 232.970 0.905 225.430 223.530 1.675 12001.002 3 225.430 223.530 1.675 195.850 194.530 1.095 1200









Ratio R 0.288


Rossendale Hospital Existing Outfall 3 Run-Off Designed By JMC Checked By Network W.12.4.1

Page 1




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.

1.000 120 Winter 1 0%1.001 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Winter 31.002 15 Winter 1 0%

PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 233.942 -0.225 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 233.082 -0.113 0.000 0.49 0.0 72.4 OK1.002 3 223.610 -0.145 0.000 0.27 0.0 72.2 OK



Page 2




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.


PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 233.942 -0.225 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 233.520 0.325 0.000 1.02 0.0 149.2 SURCHARGED1.002 3 223.651 -0.104 0.000 0.57 0.0 149.2 OK



Page 3




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.


PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 234.104 -0.063 0.000 0.03 0.0 2.3 OK1.001 2 234.104 0.909 4.085 1.05 0.0 153.7 FLOOD1.002 3 223.653 -0.102 0.000 0.58 0.0 153.7 OK



Page 4



PN Length(m)

Fall(m)

Slope(1:X)

Area(ha)

T.E.(mins)

k(mm)

HYDSECT

DIA(mm)

1.000 50.000 2.520 19.8 0.000 4.00 0.600 o 2251.001 84.365 4.980 16.9 0.600 0.00 0.600 o 2251.002 41.029 6.500 6.3 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 225

PN US/MHName

US/CL(m)

US/IL(m)

USC.Depth(m)

DS/CL(m)

DS/IL(m)

DSC.Depth(m)

Ctrl US/MH(mm)

1.000 1 234.000 232.000 1.775 231.730 229.480 2.025 12001.001 2 231.730 229.480 2.025 227.000 224.500 2.275 12001.002 3 227.000 224.500 2.275 218.400 218.000 0.175 1200









Ratio R 0.288



Page 1




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.

1.000 120 Winter 1 0%1.001 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer1.002 15 Winter 1 0%

PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 232.000 -0.225 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 229.586 -0.119 0.000 0.45 0.0 56.0 OK1.002 3 224.581 -0.144 0.000 0.28 0.0 56.0 OK



Page 2




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.


PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 232.000 -0.225 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 230.027 0.322 0.000 1.03 0.0 127.7 SURCHARGED1.002 3 224.632 -0.093 0.000 0.64 0.0 127.7 OK



Page 3




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.


PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 232.000 -0.225 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 OK1.001 2 231.063 1.358 0.000 1.13 0.0 139.5 SURCHARGED1.002 3 224.640 -0.085 0.000 0.70 0.0 139.5 OK



Page 4



PN Length(m)

Fall(m)

Slope(1:X)

Area(ha)

T.E.(mins)

k(mm)

HYDSECT

DIA(mm)

1.000 10.301 0.172 59.9 0.040 4.00 0.600 o 2251.001 63.843 0.960 66.5 0.197 0.00 0.600 o 2251.002 41.263 0.617 66.9 0.135 0.00 0.600 o 2251.003 9.289 0.116 80.0 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 2251.004 22.981 1.642 14.0 0.127 0.00 0.600 o 2251.005 39.703 1.654 24.0 0.087 0.00 0.600 o 300

2.000 39.218 2.740 14.3 0.118 4.00 0.600 o 225

3.000 12.419 0.124 100.0 0.136 4.00 0.600 o 225

2.001 18.738 0.181 103.5 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 3002.002 9.804 0.063 155.0 0.045 0.00 0.600 o 3002.003 45.885 0.296 155.0 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 3002.004 9.578 0.062 154.5 0.153 0.00 0.600 o 3002.005 21.435 0.138 155.0 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 3002.006 10.432 0.067 155.0 0.079 0.00 0.600 o 300

1.006 15.523 0.248 62.6 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 3751.007 19.829 0.494 40.1 0.064 0.00 0.600 o 375

PN US/MHName

US/CL(m)

US/IL(m)

USC.Depth(m)

DS/CL(m)

DS/IL(m)

DSC.Depth(m)

Ctrl US/MH(mm)

1.000 1 233.400 231.750 1.425 233.400 231.578 1.597 12001.001 2 233.400 231.578 1.597 233.200 230.618 2.357 12001.002 3 233.200 230.618 2.357 232.900 230.001 2.674 12001.003 4 232.900 230.001 2.674 232.200 229.885 2.090 12001.004 5 232.200 229.885 2.090 229.500 228.243 1.032 12001.005 6 229.500 228.168 1.032 228.460 226.514 1.646 1500

2.000 7 235.000 231.500 3.275 230.400 228.760 1.415 1200

3.000 8 228.800 226.500 2.075 230.400 226.376 3.799 1200

2.001 9 230.400 226.301 3.799 228.460 226.120 2.040 12002.002 10 228.460 226.120 2.040 228.000 226.057 1.643 12002.003 11 228.000 226.057 1.643 229.500 225.761 3.439 12002.004 12 229.500 225.761 3.439 229.000 225.699 3.001 12002.005 13 229.000 225.699 3.001 229.000 225.560 3.140 12002.006 14 229.000 225.560 3.140 228.460 225.493 2.667 1200

1.006 10 228.460 225.418 2.667 227.000 225.170 1.455 15001.007 11 227.000 225.170 1.455 226.600 224.676 1.549 1200

Ironside Farrar Ltd 3 Worsley Court High Street Worsley Manchester Date 28.02.11 File 3841 Proposed Dra... Micro Drainage

Rossendale Hosptial 3841 Proposed S.W Network Designed By JCM Checked By Network W.12.4.1

Page 1



PN Length(m)

Fall(m)

Slope(1:X)

Area(ha)

T.E.(mins)

k(mm)

HYDSECT

DIA(mm)

1.008 81.154 5.296 15.3 0.064 0.00 0.600 o 600

4.000 37.816 2.980 12.7 0.071 4.00 0.600 o 1504.001 7.510 0.600 12.5 0.060 0.00 0.600 o 1504.002 17.173 1.380 12.4 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 1504.003 11.998 0.935 12.8 0.055 0.00 0.600 o 150

1.009 18.175 0.073 249.0 0.024 0.00 0.600 o 900

5.000 38.561 0.510 75.6 0.089 4.00 0.600 o 150

6.000 28.296 0.510 55.5 0.091 4.00 0.600 o 150

5.001 45.745 2.919 15.7 0.085 0.00 0.600 o 150

7.000 42.840 4.495 9.5 0.107 4.00 0.600 o 1007.001 38.669 0.380 101.8 0.057 0.00 0.600 o 225

5.002 13.185 1.099 12.0 0.037 0.00 0.600 o 2255.003 19.426 0.078 249.1 0.024 0.00 0.600 o 900

PN US/MHName

US/CL(m)

US/IL(m)

USC.Depth(m)

DS/CL(m)

DS/IL(m)

DSC.Depth(m)

Ctrl US/MH(mm)

1.008 12 226.600 224.451 1.549 221.090 219.155 1.335 1500

4.000 13 228.300 225.500 2.650 224.000 222.520 1.330 12004.001 14 224.000 222.520 1.330 224.000 221.920 1.930 12004.002 15 224.000 221.920 1.930 223.200 220.540 2.510 12004.003 16 223.200 220.540 2.510 221.090 219.605 1.335 1200

1.009 17 221.090 216.695 3.495 221.000 216.622 3.478 2100

5.000 18 227.000 225.000 1.850 228.200 224.490 3.560 1200

6.000 19 227.300 225.000 2.150 228.200 224.490 3.560 1200

5.001 20 228.200 224.490 3.560 223.500 221.571 1.779 1200

7.000 21 227.100 224.000 3.000 223.400 219.505 3.795 12007.001 22 223.400 219.380 3.795 223.500 219.000 4.275 1200

5.002 23 223.500 219.000 4.275 219.300 217.901 1.174 12005.003 24 219.300 216.700 1.700 221.000 216.622 3.478 2100



Page 2



PN Length(m)

Fall(m)

Slope(1:X)

Area(ha)

T.E.(mins)

k(mm)

HYDSECT

DIA(mm)

1.010 10.000 0.040 250.0 0.138 0.00 0.600 o 9001.011 25.000 0.083 301.2 0.000 0.00 0.600 oo -11.012 103.792 6.919 15.0 0.000 0.00 0.600 o 375

PN US/MHName

US/CL(m)

US/IL(m)

USC.Depth(m)

DS/CL(m)

DS/IL(m)

DSC.Depth(m)

Ctrl US/MH(mm)

1.010 25 221.000 216.622 3.478 219.000 216.582 1.518 21001.011 26 219.000 215.382 1.518 219.000 215.299 1.601 21001.012 26 219.000 215.299 3.326 212.000 208.380 3.245 Hydro-Brake® 2100







Rainfall Model FSR Profile Type WinterReturn Period (years) 100 Cv (Summer) 0.750


Ratio R 0.288



Page 3


Online Controls for Storm

Hydro-Brake® Manhole: 26, DS/PN: 1.012, Volume (m³): 171.5

Design Head (m) 2.100 Hydro-Brake® Type Md2 Invert Level (m) 215.299Design Flow (l/s) 208.0 Diameter (mm) 371

Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s)

0.100 9.6 1.200 158.5 3.000 248.8 7.000 380.10.200 37.4 1.400 170.2 3.500 268.7 7.500 393.40.300 74.9 1.600 181.7 4.000 287.3 8.000 406.30.400 111.8 1.800 192.7 4.500 304.7 8.500 418.80.500 138.9 2.000 203.2 5.000 321.2 9.000 431.00.600 154.0 2.200 213.1 5.500 336.9 9.500 442.80.800 155.3 2.400 222.5 6.000 351.91.000 150.2 2.600 231.6 6.500 366.2



Page 4



Margin for Flood Risk Warning (mm) 300.0 DVD Status ONAnalysis Timestep Fine Inertia Status OFF

DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.

1.000 15 Summer 1 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 41.001 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 41.002 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer1.003 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer1.004 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer1.005 15 Winter 1 0%2.000 15 Winter 1 0%3.000 15 Summer 1 0% 30/15 Summer2.001 15 Summer 1 0% 30/15 Summer2.002 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer2.003 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 42.004 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer2.005 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer2.006 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer1.006 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer1.007 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer1.008 15 Winter 1 0%4.000 15 Winter 1 0%4.001 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer4.002 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer4.003 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer1.009 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer5.000 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 56.000 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 45.001 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer7.000 15 Winter 1 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 47.001 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer5.002 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Winter5.003 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer1.010 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer1.011 15 Winter 1 0% 100/15 Summer 100/15 Winter 71.012 15 Winter 1 0% 1/15 Summer 100/15 Winter 7



Page 5



PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 231.795 -0.180 0.000 0.09 0.0 5.1 OK1.001 2 231.678 -0.125 0.000 0.40 0.0 24.5 OK1.002 3 230.747 -0.096 0.000 0.62 0.0 37.5 OK1.003 4 230.152 -0.074 0.000 0.78 0.0 37.2 OK1.004 5 229.982 -0.127 0.000 0.38 0.0 49.2 OK1.005 6 228.276 -0.193 0.000 0.27 0.0 57.3 OK2.000 7 231.550 -0.175 0.000 0.11 0.0 15.0 OK3.000 8 226.597 -0.128 0.000 0.39 0.0 17.3 OK2.001 9 226.422 -0.179 0.000 0.34 0.0 32.3 OK2.002 10 226.285 -0.135 0.000 0.58 0.0 36.6 OK2.003 11 226.196 -0.161 0.000 0.43 0.0 36.1 OK2.004 12 225.968 -0.093 0.000 0.80 0.0 50.0 OK2.005 13 225.875 -0.124 0.000 0.64 0.0 50.5 OK2.006 14 225.779 -0.081 0.000 0.88 0.0 57.3 OK1.006 10 225.625 -0.168 0.000 0.59 0.0 114.5 OK1.007 11 225.346 -0.199 0.000 0.45 0.0 119.9 OK1.008 12 224.561 -0.490 0.000 0.08 0.0 125.1 OK4.000 13 225.543 -0.107 0.000 0.19 0.0 9.0 OK4.001 14 222.581 -0.089 0.000 0.35 0.0 15.1 OK4.002 15 221.978 -0.092 0.000 0.32 0.0 15.0 OK4.003 16 220.611 -0.079 0.000 0.45 0.0 20.4 OK1.009 17 216.996 -0.599 0.000 0.18 0.0 144.9 OK5.000 18 225.081 -0.069 0.000 0.56 0.0 11.1 OK6.000 19 225.075 -0.075 0.000 0.50 0.0 11.5 OK5.001 20 224.584 -0.056 0.000 0.70 0.0 30.7 OK7.000 21 224.062 -0.038 0.000 0.70 0.0 13.6 OK7.001 22 219.478 -0.127 0.000 0.39 0.0 18.8 OK5.002 23 219.101 -0.124 0.000 0.41 0.0 53.7 OK5.003 24 216.975 -0.625 0.000 0.07 0.0 55.0 OK1.010 25 216.965 -0.557 0.000 0.31 0.0 206.7 OK1.011 26 215.913 -1.569 0.000 0.02 0.0 203.0 OK1.012 26 215.907 0.233 0.000 0.31 0.0 154.7 SURCHARGED



Page 6




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.

1.000 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 41.001 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 41.002 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer1.003 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer1.004 15 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Summer1.005 15 Winter 30 0%2.000 15 Winter 30 0%3.000 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer2.001 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer2.002 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer2.003 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 42.004 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer2.005 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer2.006 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer1.006 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer1.007 15 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Summer1.008 15 Winter 30 0%4.000 15 Winter 30 0%4.001 15 Summer 30 0% 100/15 Summer4.002 15 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Summer4.003 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer1.009 30 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Summer5.000 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 56.000 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 45.001 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer7.000 15 Winter 30 0% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 47.001 15 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Summer5.002 15 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Winter5.003 30 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Summer1.010 30 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Summer1.011 30 Winter 30 0% 100/15 Summer 100/15 Winter 71.012 30 Winter 30 0% 1/15 Summer 100/15 Winter 7



Page 7



PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 232.286 0.311 0.000 0.19 0.0 10.9 SURCHARGED1.001 2 232.275 0.472 0.000 0.86 0.0 52.8 SURCHARGED1.002 3 231.564 0.721 0.000 1.35 0.0 81.5 SURCHARGED1.003 4 230.434 0.209 0.000 1.69 0.0 81.1 SURCHARGED1.004 5 230.050 -0.059 0.000 0.87 0.0 111.3 OK1.005 6 228.347 -0.121 0.000 0.64 0.0 135.1 OK2.000 7 231.581 -0.144 0.000 0.28 0.0 36.6 OK3.000 8 227.120 0.395 0.000 0.88 0.0 39.4 SURCHARGED2.001 9 227.023 0.422 0.000 0.72 0.0 67.7 SURCHARGED2.002 10 226.894 0.474 0.000 1.15 0.0 72.7 SURCHARGED2.003 11 226.808 0.452 0.000 0.82 0.0 68.6 SURCHARGED2.004 12 226.610 0.550 0.000 1.64 0.0 102.5 SURCHARGED2.005 13 226.434 0.436 0.000 1.32 0.0 103.1 SURCHARGED2.006 14 226.192 0.332 0.000 1.86 0.0 120.8 SURCHARGED1.006 10 225.954 0.161 0.000 1.30 0.0 252.5 SURCHARGED1.007 11 225.513 -0.032 0.000 1.00 0.0 265.1 OK1.008 12 224.618 -0.433 0.000 0.17 0.0 279.6 OK4.000 13 225.571 -0.079 0.000 0.45 0.0 22.0 OK4.001 14 222.634 -0.036 0.000 0.93 0.0 40.7 OK4.002 15 222.041 -0.029 0.000 0.86 0.0 40.5 OK4.003 16 221.080 0.390 0.000 1.19 0.0 53.9 SURCHARGED1.009 17 217.244 -0.351 0.000 0.37 0.0 303.8 OK5.000 18 225.985 0.835 0.000 0.88 0.0 17.4 SURCHARGED6.000 19 225.925 0.775 0.000 0.84 0.0 19.3 SURCHARGED5.001 20 225.626 0.986 0.000 1.16 0.0 50.8 SURCHARGED7.000 21 225.223 1.123 0.000 1.12 0.0 21.7 SURCHARGED7.001 22 219.532 -0.073 0.000 0.78 0.0 37.9 OK5.002 23 219.147 -0.078 0.000 0.75 0.0 97.8 OK5.003 24 217.240 -0.360 0.000 0.11 0.0 95.0 OK1.010 25 217.225 -0.297 0.000 0.64 0.0 426.7 OK1.011 26 217.215 -0.267 0.000 0.04 0.0 416.1 OK1.012 26 217.178 1.504 0.000 0.39 0.0 196.7 SURCHARGED



Page 8




DTS Status ON





ClimateChange

First XSurcharge

First YFlood

First ZOverflow

O/FAct.

LvlExc.

1.000 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 41.001 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 41.002 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer1.003 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer1.004 15 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer1.005 15 Winter 100 +30%2.000 15 Winter 100 +30%3.000 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer2.001 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer2.002 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer2.003 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 42.004 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer2.005 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer2.006 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer1.006 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer1.007 15 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer1.008 15 Winter 100 +30%4.000 15 Winter 100 +30%4.001 15 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer4.002 15 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer4.003 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer1.009 60 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer5.000 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 56.000 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 45.001 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer7.000 15 Winter 100 +30% 30/15 Summer 100/15 Summer 47.001 60 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer5.002 60 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Winter5.003 60 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer1.010 60 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer1.011 60 Winter 100 +30% 100/15 Summer 100/15 Winter 71.012 60 Winter 100 +30% 1/15 Summer 100/15 Winter 7



Page 9



PNUS/MHName

WaterLevel(m)

Surch'edDepth (m)

FloodedVolume(m³)

Flow /Cap.

O'flow(l/s)


1.000 1 233.403 1.428 3.449 0.88 0.0 49.4 FLOOD1.001 2 233.405 1.602 4.743 1.15 0.0 70.7 FLOOD1.002 3 232.954 2.111 0.000 1.70 0.0 103.1 FLOOD RISK1.003 4 231.186 0.960 0.000 2.14 0.0 102.7 SURCHARGED1.004 5 230.682 0.572 0.000 1.15 0.0 147.6 SURCHARGED1.005 6 228.387 -0.081 0.000 0.86 0.0 182.3 OK2.000 7 231.608 -0.117 0.000 0.47 0.0 61.4 OK3.000 8 228.711 1.986 0.000 1.24 0.0 55.2 FLOOD RISK2.001 9 228.504 1.903 0.000 1.09 0.0 102.7 SURCHARGED2.002 10 228.262 1.842 0.000 1.91 0.0 120.2 FLOOD RISK2.003 11 228.007 1.650 6.896 1.30 0.0 108.5 FLOOD2.004 12 227.868 1.807 0.000 2.18 0.0 135.9 SURCHARGED2.005 13 227.604 1.605 0.000 1.76 0.0 137.7 SURCHARGED2.006 14 227.220 1.360 0.000 2.51 0.0 163.3 SURCHARGED1.006 10 226.786 0.993 0.000 1.77 0.0 344.4 SURCHARGED1.007 11 226.001 0.456 0.000 1.39 0.0 368.0 SURCHARGED1.008 12 224.652 -0.399 0.000 0.24 0.0 390.2 OK4.000 13 225.598 -0.052 0.000 0.76 0.0 36.9 OK4.001 14 223.976 1.306 0.000 1.16 0.0 50.3 FLOOD RISK4.002 15 223.220 1.150 0.000 1.02 0.0 48.4 SURCHARGED4.003 16 221.829 1.139 0.000 1.48 0.0 67.1 SURCHARGED1.009 17 219.074 1.479 0.000 0.43 0.0 354.0 SURCHARGED5.000 18 227.005 1.855 5.322 1.47 0.0 29.1 FLOOD6.000 19 227.302 2.152 2.334 1.20 0.0 27.4 FLOOD5.001 20 227.045 2.405 0.000 1.35 0.0 59.4 SURCHARGED7.000 21 227.102 3.002 1.905 1.29 0.0 25.1 FLOOD7.001 22 219.843 0.238 0.000 0.79 0.0 38.5 SURCHARGED5.002 23 219.657 0.432 0.000 0.78 0.0 102.5 SURCHARGED5.003 24 219.063 1.463 0.000 0.12 0.0 103.1 FLOOD RISK1.010 25 219.056 1.534 0.000 0.71 0.0 475.7 SURCHARGED1.011 26 219.041 1.559 40.669 0.04 0.0 434.6 FLOOD1.012 26 219.039 3.365 39.011 0.56 0.0 277.8 FLOOD



Page 10


taylor wimpey, manchester flood risk assessment€¦ · development will not increase the risk of...

Documents